Since 1989, Fourth Generation War (4GW) has served as a popular heuristic for understanding the contemporary operating environment and related developments in warfare. First proposed by a group of military theorists led by William Lind, 4GW rested on three interconnected claims: first, the nation-state faces a "universal crisis of legitimacy"; second, intrastate war has increased in frequency and intensity in response to state decline; and third, interstate war has become obsolete in the face of nuclear weapons and international norms against "aggressive war." This monograph examines all three claims through a "compare and contrast" methodology. Each section lays out a 4GW claim, establishes evaluation criteria, and then contrasts the 4GW claim with alternative explanations derived from political science literature. This monograph finds that 4GW theorists do not accurately describe the contemporary operating environment, nor do they recognize or account for significant continuities in war and politics over the last three centuries. When reexamined within a longer time horizon, patterns of intrastate and interstate warfare after 1945 demonstrate significant continuity, casting doubt on 4GW's explanatory and predictive value as a paradigm for future war.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)