This is coolbert: Various authorities out there like to categorize war and define "war" in terms they feel are correct. It is interesting to consider the various categorizations that the authorities come up with. Such as:

Up until the mid-90's, the U.S. Army categorized wars as being:


Low Intensity Conflict [LIC] - - Military force being used in a limited way by limited numbers of troops, utilizing limited weaponry.

Mid Intensity Conflict [MIC] - - Large numbers of troops being used in combat but weapons of mass destruction not being used, all other weaponry being used.

High Intensity Conflict [LIC] - - Large numbers of troops being used in combat and utilizing weapons of mass destruction.

The war in Iraq currently being fought is a LIC by this set of definitions. What was fought prior to that in Iraq was MIC.

After the mid-90's, the U.S. Army began to categorize things differently. Such as:

Operations Other Than War [OOTW].

and

War.

OOTW and war replaced the three previous definitions, LIC, MIC, and HIC.

There is also the Peace-War continuum to consider as a way of categorizing war. This is the polar opposite diagram with peace on one side and war on the other. Connected by a horizontal line with a sliding scale on it. Supposes that two countries are always at conflict in some manner. This conflict can take the form of peaceful competition as currently exists between the U.S. and Japan, or take the form of war as has currently been fought between the U.S. and Iraq. With respect to the relations between various countries, the sliding scale of the continuum is always moving from one direction to the other as relations between countries improves [peace] or deteriorates [war].

Another way of categorizing and defining war is used by the group, "Defense and the National Interest". See their web site by clicking here. This group categorizes war in what they call "generations". These generations follow a chronological historical sequence and are as follows:


First Generation: The linear type of war as invented by Gustavus and brought to a apex of fruition by Napoleon.


Second Generation: Warfare of the rifled musket and machinegun from the era of the American Civil War to World War One. Characterized as war by fire and movement.

Third Generation: Blitzkrieg warfare as practiced first by the Germans in the spring of 1918 and continuing until current time.

Fourth Generation: Warfare as practiced by trans-national entities [terrorists, drug dealers], using unconventional means. Being waged against the nation-states of the world by groups that transcend the normal boundaries of countries. [the current anti-terrorist war against Al Qaeda would be such a war as this].

In addition some authorities speak of symmetric and asymmetric warfare. Conventional warfare as practiced by traditional nation-states is symmetric. Asymmetric is the form of warfare as practiced by the trans-national entities.

Well, whose definition and characterization is correct? Well, they all have some value to them. And you can find flaw with all of them. Perhaps De Puy's verity of combat # 13 is most applicable here. War is too complex and endeavor to be described in a simple aphorism. I would agree with that.

coolbert.