Thomas X. Hammes speculates that a series of large explosions at major ports could effectively “end globalization”.

My previous post, “Fourth-generation warfare expert to speak in Wellington on Monday”, generated some interest, and several people have asked me for a report. Well, I guess I did promise you, so here goes…

As Shlok said, Hammes is indeed very approachable, and has an excellent speaking style (a bit too reliant on Powerpoint but I guess that’s the American military way). The lecture was basically a rehash of his 5GW article, highly recommended for those of you who missed out. The first ten minutes were a very brief summary – maybe too brief for the audience, many of whom seemed unfamiliar with 4GW – of The Sling and the Stone:

• The generations-of-war framework is just another framework. However, it relies on the fact that war reflects society, and so changes in war reflect social, economic and political change – not just technological change.
• 1GW = massed manpower. 2GW = massed firepower. 3GW = maneuver. 4GW = evolved insurgency (or massed information).
• “Fourth generation warfare uses all available networks—political, economic, social, and military—to convince the enemy’s political decision makers that their strategic goals are either unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit. It is an evolved form of insurgency.”
• Mao was one of the first to use 4GW, recognizing that the political struggle was primary, not the military struggle.
• 4GW is 5 nil against superpowers, and it is the only way that superpowers have been defeated.

Including brief case-studies of China, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, both Intifadas, and Afghanistan again.

The second part consisted of explaining his own view of 5GW, heavily influenced by his experiences commanding the response to the 2001 anthrax attacks. Some of the major points I got from this:

• The size of the group necessary to be a threat has decreased. Groups of 5-6 people, or even a super-empowered individual could do major damage, and are very difficult to track down (e.g. those responsible for the anthrax attacks).
• Virtually all potentially violent groups oppose globalization in some way. Anti-globalization activists are a potential threat.
• Militant environmentalists are another potential threat. As climate change increases and little action is taken, they will just get more frustrated, radical and violent.
• But on the other hand, motivation doesn’t matter that much, and even “squirrelly types,” social outcasts in a basement somewhere, could stir up mayhem for personal reasons.
• It is getting easier and cheaper to manufacture viruses – could be as little as $20,000 in a few years.
• Emerging threats include high-yield explosives, viruses, even nanotech. Targets could be unsecured fibre-optic cables to shut down Internet traffic, major ports to shut down world trade, or various other targets which are almost impossible to secure.
• It would be almost impossible to guard against a smallpox pandemic, which would be devastating to a disease-naive world population.
• The state is in decline – private military corporations, private militia in the US (i.e., security guards in gated communities), etc.
• The government can’t do much about 5GW on its own. Whereas 4GW required a “whole-of-government” response, 5GW requires a “whole-of-society” response. Analogous to how spam, viruses and other Internet threats require a response from all Internet users.

Followed by questions. There was some lively discussion, but most questions stuck to generic insurgency, or specific questions about Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than getting into 5GW. My question was: in the generations-of-war framework, each generation should be able to defeat the preceding generation. How would a 5GW force defeat a 4GW force? The response wasn’t entirely satisfactory, I thought. If 4GW requires globalization, 5GW could basically make it impossible by ending globalization. Other than that, Hammes seemed to think that the goals were so mismatched that the two generations wouldn’t come into direct conflict (if I understood his response correctly).

The lecture was sponsored by the NZ Institute for International Affairs. The audience included top military officers, defence analysts, academics, quite a few students and various graying foreign policy wonks. Many of the older ones seemed to have a look of amused skepticism when Hammes got into his more speculative concepts. Others just seemed horrified by Hammes’ apocalyptic visions of smallpox pandemics, ammonium-nitrate explosions in major ports, sabotage of unsecured fibre-optic cables and cheap, genetically-engineered superviruses produced by squirrelly losers in basements.

All in all, a great lecture, provocative and productive, with an influential audience. I’m sure many of them saw world events in an entirely new light after hearing from Hammes. And it was a great opportunity for those of us in New Zealand to hear from a top military expert. Thanks to Thomas X. Hammes for a great presentation, and NZIIA for making it happen!

Posted by Phil on Saturday, September 1st, 2007 at 2:12 pm.