This sounds to me a lot more like “next-generation modern warfare”; postmodern warfare evokes Wizeman’s Lethal Theory (pdf), edited for brevity:
This essay belongs to a larger investigation of the ways in which contemporary military theorists are conceptualizing the urban domain. What are the terms they are using to think about cities? What does the language employed by the military to describe the city tell us about the relationship between organized violence and the production of space? What does this language tell us about the military as an institution? Not least important is the question of the role of theory in all these operations. …
There is a considerable overlap among the theoretical texts considered “essential” by military academies and architectural schools. Indeed, the reading lists of contemporary military institutions include Deleuze, Guattari, and Debord, as well as more contemporary writings on urbanism, psychology, cybernetics, and postcolonial and poststructuralist theory … the discourses which shaped thinking in various academic fields toward the end of the 20th century have been employed for the reinvigoration of warfare.
This sounds to me a lot more like “next-generation modern warfare”; postmodern warfare evokes Wizeman’s Lethal Theory (pdf), edited for brevity:
See also the blog post Nakatomi Space; ‘firehose of falsehood’ propoganda tactics, etc.