[5] Several terms are used to refer to the type of warfare generally waged between standing state militaries.
Conventional warfare, perhaps the most commonly used term, suggests warfare according to established conventions, which is generally accurate. Conventional warfare is not defined in doctrine, however, although conventional forces are:
Quote:
“conventional forces—1. Those forces capable of conducting operations using nonnuclear weapons. 2. Those forces other than designated special operations forces.”
DOD Dictionary of Military Terms,
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/ [accessed 8 October 2008]. Based on this definition, conventional warfare thus would include irregular warfare not conducted by special operations forces.
Joint Publication 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States, uses the term traditional war, which
Quote:
“is characterized as a confrontation between nation-states or coalitions/alliances of nation-states. This confrontation typically involves small-scale to largescale, force-on-force military operations in which adversaries employ a variety of conventional military capabilities against each other in the air, land, maritime, and space physical domains and the information environment. The objective is to defeat an adversary’s armed forces, destroy an adversary’s war-making capacity, or seize or retain territory in order to force a change in an adversary’s government or policies.”
(Washington: Joint Chiefs of Staff, 14 May 2007), p. I-6.
Traditional warfare, however, implies military methods based on time-honored cultural history, which routinely has included irregular warfare and which may have little in common with future warfare between regular military forces.
The logical alternative to irregular warfare is regular warfare, which suggests warfare between regular, uniformed state militaries -- although one would be hard-pressed to find an historical example of a completely regular war.
Quote:
“Regular” is defined as “of, relating to, or constituting the permanent standing military force of a state <the regular army> <regular soldiers>.”
Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary,
http://www.merriam-webster.com [accessed 8Oct08].
Compare all these to:
Quote:
“irregular forces -- Armed individuals or groups who are not members of the regular armed forces, police, or other internal security forces.”
[DOD Dictionary, accessed 8Oct08.]
And:
Quote:
“irregular warfare -- A violent struggle among state and non-state actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant population(s). Irregular warfare favors indirect and asymmetric approaches, though it may employ the full range of military and other capacities, in order to erode an adversary's power, influence, and will. Also called IW.”
[DOD Dictionary, accessed 2 October 2008].
All of which points to the ultimate futility of trying to describe warfare in terms of definitive categories.