Conclusion
Fifth generation warfare suggests an evolution whereby it is not the professional soldier which wages war but the citizen. To refine the idea further it occurs at the point of friction where groups of citizens compete for legitimacy with the state but not from or for the state and amongst themselves. This war is engendered by the narrative of social movements which may be expressed in mob or pack circumstances. The term violent transnational social movements comes to mind. When applied to instances of contemporary conflict, this paper suggests that the term terrorism might be a misnomer. Terrorists fight for a political concept -politics being the struggle for influence of the interests of a section of a population being impacted by actions of the state or by state policy. A terrorist is therefore using violence to create fear in the pursuit of a political objective. A specific objective relating to the way the interests of this section of the population is either being ignored or not acted upon by the state. Insurgency is most easily described as the actions of a group either armed or unarmed specifically intending to overthrow the governing apparatus of a state. Both these definitions refer to the state as the entity the ‘enemy’ is fighting against. It also helps to highlight the reluctance of Westphalian state governments to define native/domestic violent actors as ideational terrorists (the implication of the state’s inability to address the specific needs of sections of the population). 5G warfare might be considered a ‘vortex of violence‘ (Beebe 2010) where the boundaries between ‘battle space’ and civil society, as comprised of social movements and cultural causes as well as identity driven collectives begin to blur as a result of frustration. In this blurring is the space where future war will be fought. “The first duty of any social entity is to protect the lives of its members. Either modern states cope with low intensity conflict or else they will disappear” (Van Creveld, 1991 : 224). We argue that this disappearance takes the shape of the increasing relevance of, and allegiance to, groups and causes versus towards the state. 5G warfare might thus be considered identity-based war in an attempt to dominate the opposing culture or “other” culture. The transnational nature of such warfare and its combatants distinguishes previous state-based generations of war from 5G warfare. Violent transnational social movements based on identity, thus play a significant role in contemporary conflict and arguably change the shape and nature of contemporary warfare by introducing a new generation of war which does not use the state or territory as a reference point.