Gibson has always been one of my favorite authors. When I read this I wasn't even thinking about 5GW but this is a good catch. He was writing Pattern Recognition at the time 9/11 happened and it dramatically changed the direction of the book.

“Yes. I want to make the public aware of something they don’t quite yet know that they know — or have them feel that way. Because they’ll move on that, do you understand? They’ll think they’ve thought of it first. It’s about transferring information, but at the same time about a certain lack of specificity.”

This is possibly the best statement of the culture changing/altering aspect of 5GW that I have seen to date. It is kind of one-part conspiracy theory and one part pop culture. To put it in manuever theory terms, the purpose of 5GW used in this manner is to positionally and/or functionally dislocate an enemy 4GW force from being able to attack the will of its opponent. And keeping with the 'Secretwar' formless aspect of 5GW, the culture being effected never even realizes it is under attack. It, in fact, believes that it is changing itself for its own purposes and/or benefit.

It, in fact, believes that it is changing itself for its own purposes and/or benefit.

I mentioned something like this in an earlier post.

Lately, I've also been considering the possibility that 5GW may not quite be war as we normally think of war. In fact, we might do well to review what war is before we leap much further in our consideration of 5GW. The pedestrian p.o.v. on war is that it is destructive, violent, etc., but that is a residual definition related to the tools of war that have hitherto been used. (It is a physics-centric concept, or highly dependent on a consideration of the surface effects of war.) My latest 5GW musings concern whether the attacker must always be seeking to destroy his opponent. Perhaps, as mentioned in the post on Initiating 5GW (with regard to a 4GW - 5GW match-up), the goal will be to change the opponent. The opponent may actually appreciate the change without ever knowing that better alternatives once existed.

And so, when thinking of all wars that have occurred, perhaps changing the opponent has always been the goal; it was just effected through the use of directly-applied physics, or weaponry.

My latest 5GW musings concern whether the attacker must always be seeking to destroy his opponent.

Indeed. As John Boyd wrote, the two purposes of war are Subversion or Subduing -- taking-over or taking-down.

It has always been my opinion that war is about defeating your enemy, not destroying him. That goes back all the way to Sun Tzu, "to win without fighting". Add to that this thought, perhaps 5GW isn’t necessarily about changing your opponent. Perhaps a 5GW attack can be most effective when focused inwardly, changing yourself so that your opponent’s attack is dislocated. 4GW has always ultimately been about attacking the will of its enemy. What would really be easier, changing the culture of a people in the Middle East who we really at the bottom line don’t truly understand? Or changing ourselves, where we are intimately familiar with all aspects of the culture and how it grows and trends? I think given the formless aspect of 5GW and the fact it works behind the scenes that the latter may, more often than not, be the better option.

It has always been my opinion that war is about defeating your enemy, not destroying him.

arherring,

I didn't like this consideration, because "defeat" seemed too vague. It's a catch-all. One might as well say that the purpose of war is to triumph or to achieve victory: what do these things really mean, nuts & bolts?

So I looked up the etymology, as I frequently do when I want a bit more clarification; and I chuckled:

"Middle English defeten, from defet, disfigured, from Old French desfait, past participle of desfaire, to destroy, from Medieval Latin disfacere, to destroy, mutilate, undo : Latin dis-, dis- + Latin facere, to do" [American Heritage Electronic Dictionary]

So defeat is destruction. Or, taking the latest ancestor, the Middle English meaning, defeat is to disfigure -- and that last one is interesting, because it brings to my mind the formlessness of 5GW and suggests, in a roundabout way, that a 5GW force, being formless, might change the form of a foe, or "dis-figure" that foe.

But my original thought was that the 5GW force would change its foe (or get that foe to change himself) and that earlier forms of warfare dis-figured/changed foes by literally changing them in a physical way (blowing limbs apart or dropping hot tar on them....)

Perhaps a 5GW attack can be most effective when focused inwardly, changing yourself so that your opponent’s attack is dislocated.

But paradoxically, no-form cannot be changed without assuming a form and thus forsaking formlessness. So...well, let me continue;

What would really be easier, changing the culture of a people in the Middle East who we really at the bottom line don’t truly understand?

Not understanding them is a major problem, if we truly wanted to apply 5GW against our opponents in the Middle East. Rather than say that changing them would be too difficult so we might as well give up that course of action, perhaps we should enable ourselves to pursue a 5GW strategy by gaining deeper understanding of them. For a 5GW fighter, understanding the foe is essential; else, no 5GW can be waged.

But I think, also, you may be mistaking scales. A "change" can be very small yet lead to a much larger, and more fundamental, transfiguration.

Furthermore, if we agree that we understand ourselves the best, we might as well agree that ME foes understand themselves best, too. So...if we have a better chance of changing ourselves, they might have a better chance at changing themselves, right? And, the 5GW strategy I've been construing depends on jujitsu tactics to turn a society against itself, or to change itself --

"Because they’ll move on that, do you understand? They’ll think they’ve thought of it first."

Or changing ourselves, where we are intimately familiar with all aspects of the culture and how it grows and trends?

--This has me thinking of static or stable systems of order and the likelihood that some external force is required to cause change. But in general, intimate familiarity is a blinding force, I think. Such familiarity causes tires to spin in mud: we think we know all about rotating, and we might, but we don't get anywhere. (Of course, we don't realize there is any where to get to...)

I mentioned in one previous entry my thought that the system of majority rule is a fundamental weakness for any democracy wishing to defend against 5GW. In such a system, the 5GW foe would only need to influence a majority or the leaders of that majority -- or create a majority opinion that will lead the target to self-defeat. (Self-disfigurement?) The same is somewhat true concerning 4GW opponents, who also only need to sap the will of a majority.

I think there are ways to defend against 5GW which would require fundamental changes to a society such as ours. But for defending against a foreign 4GW opponent...well, how at danger is America, really, of being destroyed, disfigured, or defeated by a 4GW force? An internal 4GW would be dangerous indeed; but sometimes I'm left thinking that the foreign 4GW opponents we have thus far faced are fairly meager. They may keep us from achieving empire abroad, but even when they have attacked our homeland -- assuming, for the sake of argument, that al Qaeda is a 4GW opponent -- the damage has been relatively small, given the full dimensions of the U.S.

But, here's the real question: has al Qaeda succeeded in "changing" America? Or has America in any way changed itself, these last 4 1/2 years?

Curtis,

Very interesting and a lot to think on. Let me do that before I respond completely. I do want to clear up one thing that my intended meaning may have gotten distorted or confused.

Defeat vs. Destroy
I meant this in the sense that I am not so much seeking the physical annihilation of my opponent, but rather the course of action that accomplishes my objective with the least possible effort or expenditure of resources. This is somewhat of a holdover from my study of Manuever Theory so please forgive me.

Second Clarification:

arherring said:
"Perhaps a 5GW attack can be most effective when focused inwardly, changing yourself so that your opponent’s attack is dislocated."

Curtis Gale Weeks said:
"But paradoxically, no-form cannot be changed without assuming a form and thus forsaking formlessness. So…well, let me continue;"

I worded this particular thought very badly, and really I think we need some new terms to describe things more clearly. I wasn't meaning to say that the 5GW force would change itself, but rather change the society / organization it is working to protect or advance. Maybe to clarify a bit more I think there has to be a sense of objectivity in the 5GW force to allow it to effect both sides of the conflict. This is what I was really driving at. Changing your opponent rather than destroying your opponent is fine, I completely agree with you there. However, keep in mind the potential to effect change on both sides of a conflict in order to achieve a goal.

Curtis Gale Weeks said:
"But for defending against a foreign 4GW opponent…well, how at danger is America, really, of being destroyed, disfigured, or defeated by a 4GW force?"
and:
"But, here’s the real question: has al Qaeda succeeded in “changing” America? Or has America in any way changed itself, these last 4 1/2 years?"

As for the first question:
I suppose it would depend upon the aim of the 4GW organization. If the 4GW organization's goal is to cause us to abandon a specific political / military objective in a particular part of the world, then Yes, it is entirely possible. If a 4GW organization's goal is to cause America to draw in on itself like a turtle drawing back into its shell andgive up our superpower status, then No, I can't see that ever happening.

As for the second question:
I would say that America has changed itself more since 9/11 than al Qaeda has changed America. 9/11 itself was that catalyst for that change and from a strategic point of view a terrible failure on the part of OBL and al Qaeda as it caused America to take notice of what was going on in Afganistan and act against it.

I wasn’t meaning to say that the 5GW force would change itself, but rather change the society / organization it is working to protect or advance.

This sounds right. I think that determining who will constitute the 5GW force is important, because the society or organization it will be protecting is merely one more pawn on the board. (The 5GW force does not necessarily change itself. Although, I imagine it will not be a strictly static organization.) If the 5GW force is seeking its own ascension or angling for a system of controls, then in truth there will be very little distinction between the pawns: this means, the "home" society and the ultimate foe, and all other pieces on the board.

If the 4GW organization’s goal is to cause us to abandon a specific political / military objective in a particular part of the world, then Yes, it is entirely possible.

I think this represents an obstacle rather than a defeat or destruction of America. But then, America's objectives are often piecemeal or short-sighted, often both. So obstructions remain obstructions as long as we see no way past them while "holding the course."

If a 4GW organization’s goal is to cause America to draw in on itself like a turtle drawing back into its shell andgive up our superpower status, then No, I can’t see that ever happening.

Extreme isolationism is extremely unlikely, perhaps impossible. I think America is currently drawn in on itself, however, attitudinally if not otherwise, and this leads us to stick to a course and give the 4GW opponents obstruction capabilities. Still, this is not a defeat, except insofar as we have set the conditions of victory in a myopic fashion; paradoxically, this leads to short-sightedness.

On 9/11 and al Qaeda: I think you are right that OBL "misunderestimated" the U.S. reaction, although I'd bet he had often considered the possibility that we'd go for Afghanistan and had contingency plans.

On who has changed whom: I should have mentioned in an earlier comment that the change can often go both ways as both parties assimilate into a larger emergent system: the Tango. But I'd give more points to the catalyst than the reacting (reactive) solution. This does not mean that I believe OBL is an adept at 5GW -- I think he is a 4GW warrior who has subsequently been forced to evolve toward 5GW; but he is not there yet and probably won't get there -- but only that he had the "jack move." (Remember that term from Pattern Recognition?)

Curtis Gale Weeks said:
"I think he is a 4GW warrior who has subsequently been forced to evolve toward 5GW; but he is not there yet and probably won’t get there — but only that he had the “jack move.” (Remember that term from Pattern Recognition?)"

Nice call back on the original topic, and a term that deserves to be used more often. Yes, I do remember "jack move". Sort of a direct attack on a critical vulnerability but more than that if I remember right.

I take it from that you are about done with the book if you aren't already. I do think I like Neuromancer better, but Pattern Recognition is still Gibson at his best.

As a side note I am re-reading a book by Robert Leonhard called "Principles of War for the Information Age". In it he talks about the various types if dislocation in Maneuver Warfare; functional, positional, temporal and moral dislocation. It occured to me that when you do something to dislocate your opponent in all four of these aspects that would be a pretty good definition of 'Jack Move'.

When I think of "Jack Move," I think of the establishment of a flow or organizing principle around which other things -- people, ideas, etc. -- must form or follow. In a way, it is throwing a grain of sand into a stable system; the system is forced to reorganize with the addition of that grain of sand. If the system is not able to expel the grain of sand, the entire system becomes something a little different than when it began.

Curtis:

Admittedly it has been a while since I read Pattern Recognition but if I remember right Dorotea makes the 'Jack Move' on Cayce when she surprises her with the Michelin Man. In doing so Dorotea literally paralyses Cayce. To me this makes the 'Jack Move' a sneak attack that targets something so critical it renders the victim unable to function, if only temporarily.

In your example of 9/11, I agree totally that it was a 'Jack Move' on the part of al Queda by this definition. For days our entire society ground to a virtual halt. Sneak attacks are by definition temporal and positional dislocation, the results on 9/11 were certainly functional and moral dislocation.

I see where you are going with the 'grain of sand' analogy but it feels too elegant and delicate. A 'Jack Move' should be direct, almost brutally so. More like a quick punch to the solar plexus than an extra straw on the camel's back.

Too elegant and delicate, eh?

I think you are right about the Dorotea/Cayce maneuver; and, about 9/11; but I'm extending the metaphor. Cayce mentions that she got the term from a semi-psychotic boyfriend, who may or may not have always acted on his fantasies of making Jack Moves; this, oddly enough, made me think of the first winning Survivor on the reality show of the same name:  the gay guy who pranced around in the nude. Analysis afterward of his various tactics was tied to business practices of similar disruptive out-of-the-blue maneuvers. So, yes, it is a kind of blow to the solar plexus. However, the Jack Move can be effected in various ways in 5GW. Essentially, the effort of disruption can be a bit more hidden or ambiguous than the dramatic Michelin Man move or the 9/11 move -- especially if secrecy is key.

I went back and re-read the book looking at it through the eyes of 5GW and Lo and Behold, hitting me like a duck in the face is an honest to god 5GW organization revealed at the culmination of the plot of the book. If you haven't finished the book Curtis I'll not ruin it for you but the implications are very, very interesting as far as distributing a specific meme (in this case 'the footage') to achieve a desired result, as well as protecting the organization that creates and propogates the meme.

Ah, I had stopped reading it, about midway through when Gibson swerved into a boring soap opera pas de deux between Cayce and her ex-boyfriend, and I became distracted with other things. Now I'll have to complete it.

I just finished reading it today at lunch. It was interesting for awile..but it got boring. I forced to myself to finish hoping for an interesting ending that didn't happen.

Purpleslog,
So you don't agree that the footage organization doesn't fall into the category of a 5GW organization?

Just dropping a line to say...I still haven't completed it. For some reason, in the last decade or so my patience for fiction has dwindled, and if I actually do begin a novel, it needs to keep my attention or I'm likely to wander off. I too easily spot the excesses, the self-indulgent bloat, in anything other than masterful work (although, if the book is good enough, I might wade through that dreck if it's not too much.) I have my place marked in Gibson's book and may finish it sometime in the future; what I have already read is still in my mind.

Incidentally, I've been wondering if Gibson took a postmodernist approach, attempting to do what he would describe, by veering into the Cayce/ex dialogue. I.e., from a 5GW perspective, we may often be influenced down the road to boredom, because we turn our eyes away when we are bored, which is something a 5GW organization might want (counter to the example of the footage, which drew eyes and attention to it.) Or, vis-a-vis postmodernism, and tying it to 5GW in this case, I wonder if Gibson felt the need to introduce a lot of seemingly incidental or extraneous information into the pattern he would weave, to give us the same feeling of uncertainty Cayce experienced whenever she viewed the footage...

"I wonder if Gibson felt the need to introduce a lot of seemingly incidental or extraneous information into the pattern he would weave, to give us the same feeling of uncertainty Cayce experienced whenever she viewed the footage"

I agree that the book initially has a feel of a sort of wandering hopelessness and I do think it was intentional of Gibson's part. Cayce is running away from a lot of things and ends up in a place she calls 'mirror-world' that she had originally thought would get her away from her problems but turns out to be just different enough to make it a little bit worse. I did think the book picked up its pace a bit and became more focused as Cayce broke deeper into the origins of the footage but never really goes into a action-adventure roller coaster ride. I don't think I've ever read a Gibson book that has though.

-Shrug- I liked it. It also looks like his next book is going to be in the same world, or at least the snippets he has posted from time to time on his personal blog have mentioned things like Blue Ant though not Cayce or Parkaboy or any of the other characters from Pattern Recognition as far as I know. His previous efforts have come in loosely connected triogies that don't neccessarily have any character crossover but follow similar overall themes so this fits his pattern.

I think the footage org cold be a hint of 5GW.

In the end, I found the book not my liking...so I didn't get much out of it.

To cleanse my reading pallet, at work during lunch I am reading a fun detective novel set circa 70Ad in the Roman Empire (from the Falco series).