I'm continuing this thread over here
Printable View
I'm continuing this thread over here
Cav Guy. Read his book a long time ago; agreed with parts and not with others. I do strongly agree with this statement of his you quote:Anyone who agrees with me is bound to be thinking correctly... :DQuote:
"the fact is that we have to establish a military and civilian establishment which can fight and win any war, on any battlefield, anywhere in the world. That will require dominant symmetric/conventional/nuclear capabilities and asymmetric/irregular/counterinsurgency capabilities.
Or is that I agree with him so I must be thinking correctly... ;)
Either way, he's right.
P.S.
I have no hangup on hybrid war as a term; I just point out that as a practical effort, it's been around for years and thus is not 'new.' McCuen is correct, we have not dealt with it at all well and we need to be able to do that. No radical reforms are necessary, just common sense improvements -- and the civilian policy establishment is a big part of the problem.
Thats why the military became so interested in systems analysis in the late 50's and 60's. One method to analyze and develop a counter System to any Violent System out there. State,Non-State,4GW, Guerrilla,Insurgents,Terrorist,Gangs,and criminals.
Here is a link to an excellant paper on the subject, read it and look at how many differant groups it applies to. Simple is good:wry:
http://www.usafa.af.mil/df/inss/OCP/OCP52.pdf
Slap,
Thanks for the link, more to read this weekend.
The UPS guy dropped off The Scientific Way of Warfare (Order and Chaos on the Battlefields of Modernity) by Antoine Bousquet (ISBN 978--0-231-70078-8) the other day. Dense reading, extensive footnotes, and I do not get the feeling that the author has spent time in the field, but it's pretty interesting so far (only on chapter 2).
Chapter 1: Technoscientific Regimes of Order in Warfare
Chapter 2: Mechanistic Warfare and the Clockwork Universe
Chapter 3: Thermodynamic Warfare and the Science of Energy
Chapter 4: Cybernetics and the Genesis of the Computer
Chapter 5: Cybernetic Warfare: Computers at War
Chapter 6: A New Informational Regime: From Chaos Theory to Complexity Science
Chapter 7: Towards Chaoplexic Warfare? Network-Centric Warfare
Regards,
Steve
I know both Doug MacGregor and Frank Hoffman, extremely well and have immense respect for both men - and I don't give that out lightly :D
Like most men I respect, I do not agree with all they say, but Doug hits the nail on the head with this one.
The IDF has made close examination of Hoffman's work, but they have very different ideas, that do no equate to "Hybrid". For the IDF Gaza and Lebanon are State v State warfare the civilians to be protected are their own. The fact that the enemy does not posses armoured brigades is utterly irrelevant - as it should be. There is no "new war". War is war and all wars are basically the same.
In my opinion "Hybrid" does serve a purpose if your Army/Services are intellectually incapable of grasping the nuance of the wider problem. It's the same justification as Manoeuvre Warfare.
I think part of the problem you're running in to is that a lot of experts throw around the word "hybrid war" to describe a number of different phenomona. David Kilcullen uses it to refer to the complexities of fighting multiple insurgencies, criminal organizations and ethnic conflict in Iraq. Others seem to use it to refer to entities like Hezbollah, which didn't fight as conventional or unconventional. I think we may have fallen in love with a really cool buzzword.
In the old days of Empire, what Kilcullen refers to were called "Hostiles" and were a well known and well understood phenomena.
Hezbollah is no different from the NLF (VC) or the Boers. In fact they are exactly the same, just far less competent.
All be seen before and explained in detail. We don't need words or explanations. We just need some common sense.
I need to read more on hybrid warfare, but at first glance it does not seem all that new. I've been reading Roman (Republic) history lately and it seems to me they would be quite familiar with the concept of "hybrid warfare" if not the terminology.
Col.(ret) Macgregor said above:
He goes on to say that the IDF got it tactically and operationally right in the recent Hamas war. I agree with that to an extent, but Hamas' incompetence and mistakes, and the IDF's limited operational objectives (they didn't go "downtown" to root out hidden Hamas fighters/leadership) were factors as well.Quote:
In addition, the IDF embraced the use of armor, artillery and fuel air explosive in the conduct of urban operations with the object of minimizing the exposure of dismounted IDF troops to enemy fire. While the Hamas enemy may qualify as one of Frank Hoffman's hybrids, the IDF wasted no time in fighting for hearts and minds because the IDF knows there are none to win in the Islamic World.
Is like a pilot saying, let's not worry about landings, lets learn from the pilot who does fantastic take offs and level flights.Quote:
Originally Posted by the article
Or cooking dinner with all the right ingredients and proper equipment but assuming 15 min at 800 will work rather than 60 at 200:wry:
The issue that seems to continue to be left out of much of the discussion whenever IDF is involved is the fact that how they "war" is and will always be completely different than how we can "war" because they live their thus your talking about the difference between fighting for survival(them) and changing things for someone else(us).
I've always agreed with WILF that war is war, Just seems like it needs to be stated that theres a big difference between -
Your War and Someone elses battles
survive, doing things right tactically and operationally are pretty important -- one error can mean disaster.
Which does not at all mean the Israelis did not profit strategically from the effort. Some times just demonstrating capability or will is a very important strategic effort (see Iraq, 2003-2009).
I do agree that the Israelis offer few usable examples for us -- but in this case, there is one minor lesson -- that 'hybrid' war is manageable.
This is all a mess...
We have Jack McCuen telling us that Hybrid is new and a combination of Symmetric and Asymmetric war - seriously? Who fights a symmetric war? Two boxers, maybe? And Hoffman spreading the term around with wild abandon.
I suggest:
1. It's not new.
2. The term would be useful if it prompted some of the dinosaurs / oil tankers (insert your own metaphor) to change course and if it galvanises the community - it isn't - it's being seized upon as a means to settle old scores (especially between the services...EBO anyone?), make reputations, but generally it is divisive.
3. We're trying to walk before we can run...I still haven't seen a decent Irregular Warfare definition...I think that we need to get our house into order before we start developing new terms for old problems.
I notice that the Israelis are pushing Hybrid real hard. Hezbollah's victory was a red herring - as this forum has stated, the Israelis got caught with their pants down. Ill prepared, not trained, and poorly equipped.
And the Hamas thing...Israel lost (didn't win) against Hezbollah, so it loses its deterrence... best thing to do is to find someone real quick and give them a good hiding, just so the neighbourhood knows you're still in business.
I think Hybrid's popularity stems from the fact that it is a useful fig leaf to cover someone's screw-up.
LP
it is unfortunately our mess because for all intensive purposes it does seem to drive where we go.
As for Hezbollah, Hamas, or other's should it really be considered indicatory in the least of what a different player involved in the same conflict should expect?
Do you suppose were it the ally's entering that there wouldn't be a massive difference in how they would fight. Or even if the Lebanese army where to go at it with them, are you sure it wouldn't be something more akin to Iraq or the Phillipine's, Farc, or (fill in the blank) I'm sure you get the point.
Or how about if we had decided to have a go at Russia during the Georgian incursion last year. What might that have looked like? Anywho long way of saying I for one am still waiting on the definition of "regular" (war, warfare, battle, conflict, negotiation, barter, trade, etc) anything having to do with one party gaining or losing something to or from another.
As to your concern with irregular warfare
How's this for definition.
Any conflict that occurs with the intent of achieving a given endstate, yet which is enacted through actions, teachings, or politics which do not conform to universally accepted norms for warfare.
No good? Oh well had to try.
Funny thing is seem's to me that once your able to accurately describe something in such a manner as to be encompassing of all actions to be found within it; it wouldn't be quite so irregular anymore:confused:
In this particular case I don;t see a problem with the definition being used now. Perhaps the more important issue is how it is used and by whom toward what ends?
I don't think we need anymore new words in the war vocabulary as many have pointed out, however I bet this catches on. Our economy is a hybrid economy, part planned and part free market (supposedly anyway) this term was popular when I studied economies a long time ago but it fell out of fashion and the term now is "mixed economy". However it is about to make a comeback and bet Hybrid Warfare will come with it....we will see.:wry:
Not true. As I stated in a previous post on this thread, the IDF is not enamoured with "Hybrid". I was at the IDF's Staff Collage, the day after Hoffman, so I am pretty well aware of their reaction and reservations. I don't know who you think here is pushing it, but they are not on my radar.
In 2006 the IDF knew more about Hezbollah than any other organisation on the planet. The operational problems that did occur (and they did) had little or nothing to do with not understanding how Hezbollah worked.
What the IDF are concerned with is something a bit more nuanced than "Hybrid," and they've been talking about it for the last 10 years
Bob, your comments make a great deal of sense & I enjoyed reading them.
Certainly the model will be whatever the Congress & DoD say, irrespective.
Based on these things & your learned opinion, I have a question for you;
What then is the difference between "attrition" & "manoeuvre" warfare.
Pardon my ignorrance in asking, I thought I knew about five years ago.
But, matters have become somewhat blurred for me in those regards.
cheers.
I will never recommend not to read a book but before you tackle "The Scientific Way of Warfare" you may want to read Colin Gray's ARTICLE "Irregular Warfare One Nature, Manay Characters". A Google search pops it up or the below link will get you there . Mr Gray can add a lot clarity to this discussion. :)
http://www.ndu.edu/keystone/docUploa...20-%20gray.pdf
Words are important to us but what about to our enemies today?Quote:
...but looks at each problem with fresh eyes, demanding that the intelligence community commits every bit as much of their considerable skill and energy to an understanding of the environment in which an event occurs as they do currently to describing the "threat" that is operating within that environment; you avoid always refighting the last conflict and thereby reduce our nation's risks.
- Role of Civil Affairs (which encompases religious considerations)
- Role in background of VOICE OF AMERICA? Anyone notice that President Obama has started to use TV side of VOA overseas to make his points about Iran of late? *Pet subject of mine some of you may recall.
- Role of the Marine Corp in context of the variety of different environments we are up against these days...to include the damned pirates off coast of Africa.
- Huge role satellite, U-2, and drone intelligence has to be playing 24/7.
Bullmoose,
You may find a quite enlightening and spirited previous discussion here: