Orientation and Action, Part I: The OODA Loop
Abbott, Dan. "Orientation and Action, Part I: The OODA Loop." tdaxp. July 18, 2005. http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/07/18/orientation-and-action-part-i-the-ooda-loop.html (accessed August 26, 2007).
Building off a post written by Mark Safranski of ZenPundit — “successive generations of warfare tend to drive ‘deeper’ into enemy territory” — Dan tdaxp utilizes Boyd’s OODA loop to show how the fifth generation of warfare “goes deeper” into the enemy’s OODA cycle.First strong mapping of the xGW framework onto the OODA cycle.
Originally titled, “Go Deep: OODA and the Rainbow of Generational Warfare.”
On 1GW:
”
1GWs, like the Napoleon Wars, were extremely fluid. Armies could march whenever men’s feet could carry them. Information was relatively symmetrical — precise locations of either army were unavailable to any commander, while general knowledge of the land was known to all commanders….1GW was defined by conflict centered around an enemy’s ability to decide and act.”
- example: Napoleonic War
- characteristic: mass armies
- method of fighting: man-to-man
1GWs, like the Napoleon Wars, were extremely fluid. Armies could march whenever men’s feet could carry them. Information was relatively symmetrical — precise locations of either army were unavailable to any commander, while general knowledge of the land was known to all commanders….1GW was defined by conflict centered around an enemy’s ability to decide and act.”
On 2GW:
”
2GWs, like the First World War, were sticky. Armies took marched, drove, or took trains to the front line — where they stopped. In 2nd Generation War, action is easy: charge. You know exactly where you are, exactly where the enemy is, and exactly where you are going to die…2GW was defined by conflict centered around an enemy’s ability to orient and decide.”
- example: First World War
- characteristic: mass armies
- method of fighting: fixed-artillery-to-men
2GWs, like the First World War, were sticky. Armies took marched, drove, or took trains to the front line — where they stopped. In 2nd Generation War, action is easy: charge. You know exactly where you are, exactly where the enemy is, and exactly where you are going to die…2GW was defined by conflict centered around an enemy’s ability to orient and decide.”
On 3GW:
”
3GWs, like the trenches for most of the Second World War or the Lawrence of Arabia campaign in the First World War, were fluid again. But conflict kept burrowing deeper into the OODA loop and redshifting further away from action. Victory in 3rd Generation Wars required the ability to instill madness — to mess with the enemy’s minds. The purpose of 3rd Generation Warfare is to paralyze the enemy with doubt. We move even deeper into the OODA loop, to the red end of the rainbow. 3GW is defined by conflict centered around an enemy’s ability to orient.”
- example: Second World War
- characteristic: blitzkrieg, fast transitions from one maneuver to the next
- method of fighting: tanks/bombers-to-cities/armies
3GWs, like the trenches for most of the Second World War or the Lawrence of Arabia campaign in the First World War, were fluid again. But conflict kept burrowing deeper into the OODA loop and redshifting further away from action. Victory in 3rd Generation Wars required the ability to instill madness — to mess with the enemy’s minds. The purpose of 3rd Generation Warfare is to paralyze the enemy with doubt. We move even deeper into the OODA loop, to the red end of the rainbow. 3GW is defined by conflict centered around an enemy’s ability to orient.”
On 4GW:
”
If older generations of war were like fluids, 4GW was like a gas. It spreads everywhere yet regular armies have a hard time even finding battles. Like 3rd Generation Wars, 4th Generation Wars focus on the picture inside the enemy’s head. But while 3GW tries to destroy the picture, 4GW builds a new one….While 3GW tries to paralyze the enemy with doubt, 4GW tries to deny him even that much — 4GW drains the will of the enemy so he “waits and sees,” robbing him of his ability to want to do anything. In practice, this means 4GW tries to destroy an enemy’s civil society, turning his population into mindless cowards. To achieve this, 4GW is defined by conflict centered around Observe and Orient.”
- example: Vietnam War
- characteristic: dispiriting the enemy
- method of fighting: propagandists-to-populations
If older generations of war were like fluids, 4GW was like a gas. It spreads everywhere yet regular armies have a hard time even finding battles. Like 3rd Generation Wars, 4th Generation Wars focus on the picture inside the enemy’s head. But while 3GW tries to destroy the picture, 4GW builds a new one….While 3GW tries to paralyze the enemy with doubt, 4GW tries to deny him even that much — 4GW drains the will of the enemy so he “waits and sees,” robbing him of his ability to want to do anything. In practice, this means 4GW tries to destroy an enemy’s civil society, turning his population into mindless cowards. To achieve this, 4GW is defined by conflict centered around Observe and Orient.”
On 5GW:
“If traditional war centered on an enemy’s physical strength, and 4GW on his moral strength, the 5th Generation of War would focus on his intellectual strength. A 5th Generation War might be fought with one side not knowing who it is fighting. Or even, a brilliantly executed 5GW might involve one side being completely ignorant that there ever was a war. “
Filed in Blog Post and tagged X vs X, xGW vs GMW