I don’t know which 5GW blogs you have been reading but I can sympathize with the war/not war conundrum. I’ve wrestled with that myself. My best answer is this: The Fifth Gradient Warfare (5GW) that my co-bloggers and I theorize about, the XGW variant not the Generations of Modern Warfare of Lind, encompasses and describes doctrines for all kinds of conflict, not just warfare. In other words, the theory has grown beyond the terminology it was created with, but still seems to be stuck with it. Conflict has a much less slippery definition than warfare even if it isn’t any easier to deal with in the real world.
It seems to me, however, that you want a clear dividing line between ‘war’ and ‘not war.’ Sorry, I can’t give it to you, it doesn’t exist as far as I can tell. Grandfather Clausewitz it right, “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” The thing is ‘other’ isn’t the word you should be focusing on, rather ‘continuation’ should bring you more insight into 5GW.

I hope that helps.

As the progenitor of 6gw.org, I have wrestled with this notion of generations and gradients of warfare. First, it is important to look at the definition of war-fare. At its root, it is the ‘cost of direct violent confrontation’. Second, consider the qualities used by Lind to characterize ‘generations of warfare’. These qualities are a combination of force organization, identification, and norms for weapons. The interaction of force organization and weapons use is what underscores the terminology of generations of war-fare. The concept is, organize yourself such that you can still kill the other while minimizing your own losses. So yes, I also disagree with soft power as a form of war.

This is how I note the generations of warfare:

1. Line and column and rifles
2. Machine gun and indirect fire
3. Aerial, heavy bombing
4. Informal and temporary insurgency
5. Formal and sustained insurgency
6. Unmanned and unattended (drones)

Of course, one can nitpick it, (and I may even lump together #4 and #5) but that’s the short and skinny 1-6gw status quo. One trend that emerges therein is the element of the simultaneous maximization of distance and force. I identify the distance component with the raison d’etre of weapons. The whole point of a weapon is to separate self and other by distance, to buy time. Weapons also change the warfare equation, in both directions (for self and other). In terms of force, the same rule of distance applies – hide your forces the best you can to minimize losses, but secretly organize to maximize operational effectiveness. Given these equations, one can refine the 6gw definition to be drones as force multipliers, and predict 7gw in the realm of drones organized in tandem or aside from human operators.

A brief comment on the utility of war is relevant to round out the context. It is important to distinguish between an offensive (barbaric) and defensive (strategic) war. This distinction is more or less in the eye of the beholder. In a barbaric war, the aim is violence for its own sake. Total eradication of the other. There is no peaceful aim of integration of acquiescence. In a strategic war, violence is a tool that buys time. Time is used to devise a plan to pacify and integrate the opposition. Either side can draw from the range of the 1-6gw+ playbook. In either case, both sides (presumably) want to minimize self loss and maximize other loss. Barbarians don’t care about self loss and are rather indiscriminate in attributing loss to others. It is this strategic slash barbaric difference underneath that distinguishes a just from an unjust war. Hopefully, that intention is clearly articulated. In the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq, our Presidents have articulated the intention as characteristically defensive and strategic. On the other hand, Al Qaeda and its affiliates have taken the barbaric route. The question is: can there ever be peace in such a dichotomous situation? In order for there to be, the strategy of the United States has to invent a method to cause terrorists to define limited political aims. In my mind that is the only way, and I don’t know if that will happen.