The usefulness of the generational model is primarily in showing the sequence of emergence of different forms of war. But if that is not what you are interested in then you need different models to categorize the forms of war based on what it is you are trying to do. For me I'm more interested in which forms of war are available to us right now. So the sequence of emergence over time is irrelevant. Today we can wage the forms of war identified in the generational model as 2G, 3G, and 4G, but not 1G. With the exception of 1GW the emergence of the succeeding generations did not make the previous generation obsolete, rather they gave war-fighters more options for waging war in different circumstances and for different purposes. So for someone looking at the various options available for accomplishing a particular mission or policy it doesn't matter which came first.
Once 4GW appears, an interesting thing happens: the main contest is not on the battlefield but what takes place in the realm of politics, society and culture. Because of this, political activism becomes more important than military action in that arena. As this phenomena continues to evolve, what would, in the past, have been wars fought with armies will be conflicts fought through non-violent political activism, without a battlefield component at all. Would this be a new generation of war? I don't know, it might not make sense to categorize it as war at all. But it would certainly be an option available to governments and civil society actors and so has to be included in thinking about war in the contemporary world. Within this context, political activism as war doesn't make 2G, 3G, 4G obsolete, rather it expands the potential means for individuals, civil society groups, and governments to accomplish goals, by exploiting the opportunities created by contemporary political, social, economic, and technological innovations.
This is one of the reasons that I have become more interested in political activism. After all once we recognize that politics and civil society have become the arena of conflict then the proper area of study moves from military history to the history of political movements to glean insights into how to organize and take action to counter a 4G, 5G, social netwar campaign or to initiate a campaign of our own. Unfortunately there is not the same kind of literature analyzing the strategies, tactics and organization of political movements that is the equivalent of the study of wars and battles. I have also noticed that many people interested in military affairs seem to be very resistant to the idea of considering political activism within the context of thinking about forms of war.
Curtis at Dreaming 5GW asks whether George Soros' political operations are a kind of 5GW or just normal politics. I think we have to consider the possibility that it may be both. If we had a radical Islamist group that was doing exactly what Soros is doing, even if it was not connected to terrorist organizations and so was doing nothing illegal, then I think it would be more clear that this is a form of waging war against a society via politics. What we are lacking is that category to describe activity that is like war in some respects but not quite war and is like politics in some respects but is more than just normal politics. Without that category we have a hard time comprehending certain types of activities and understanding which of our institutions should be mobilized to deal with it.