Hi! I'm realizing now that I oversimplified the definition of 4th Gen war to make it fit into that little paragraph, and because of this it just sounds like guerrilla warfare. There's a key difference between the Vietcong and the Taliban, though. The difference is who their target is with each attack.

TLDR- Tactics are less relevant to this generational change than targeting. A 3rd-Gen warrior is targeting enemy soldiers. A 4th-Gen Warrior is targeting the civilians who will watch it later on TV

If you're still reading, I'll elaborate--

Vietcong fighters used guerrilla tactics against US soldiers. You're right that the VC blended in and didn't clearly identify themselves as soldiers, and that makes them look like 4th-Gen non-state actors. The difference, though, is that a VC fighter attacking a US platoon had a very focused, tangible goal: destroying the platoon. It's a very wartime mentality-- I must engage the enemy and kill him. Evasive VC tactics meant that they could take out militarily important targets without putting much of their own force at risk, but they were still targeting the military.

4th-Gen Taliban fighters used similar combat tactics, but had a different goal entirely. This is apparent when their targets are taken into account. Sometimes they did hit US military convoys with IEDs to prevent US troops from rolling in, but sometimes they hit schools, cafes, movie theaters. There is no military advantage to these targets. This is the key difference: the VC's target was an army, while the Taliban's target was a civilian audience, and not the actual recipient of their bombs.

4th-Generational warfare relies on using the media to transmit the psychological impact of a flashy suicide bombing on a bus, to a greater society who the 4th-Gen fighter is trying to rob of their faith in their government.