Hybrid Warfare (merged thread)

[William F. Owen]

Wilf
While being conservative in military matters is not only needed but also required, you cannot stop the wheel of time by simply closing you eyes. NK needs deterrence. They cannot do it with their missiles, with their nukes so they resort to IW.

OK, but when has this ever not been blindingly obvious? It is very raison d'etre of Irregular Forces.

No one in the foreseeable future will have the industrial hinterland to match the US conventional strength (CVBGs, air regiments). So they HAVE to resort to IW. In turn in which NATO and other western forces have so to say mixed record. See China's White paper from 1996. You can find it in globalsecurity.org

Again obvious - and it also side steps the very debatable idea that the US and NATO are competent against any regular military force that are not complete clowns. You do not need much in the way of military capability, intelligently employed to challenge NATO.
IMO, there is no IW. Only irregular Forces. How is an ambush, a suicide bomber or an IED something "irregular"?

And on the top of that there is the media which unlike the other state powers is neither controlled, nor limited by borders. A classic case for that is the demand by the USMC in Fallujah march 2004 to remove the Al-Jazeera reporters from the town as part of the ceasefire agreement.

Modern War flows from modern politics. Nothing changes. All media is political, and therefore actors in the conflict. This has never not been the case, as long as media has existed.

[Bob's World]

Sounds to me like they are recognizing the need for greater defensive capability that is effective in the current environment, or rather a great "counter-occupation" capability; and less of an armor heavy offensive capability.

That's a good thing, as we have no need to invade and occupy this country, nor do the South Koreans, or the Chinese. If they were investing heavily in offensive capabilities, then I would worry.

But for those who do spend time thinking about things like "how would I invade N. Korea" do me a favor and go tell your boss its time for a major overhaul of the plan, as the phase you've been basically blowing off is now the most difficult and critical phase of the operation.

[UrsaMaior]

OK, but when has this ever not been blindingly obvious? It is very raison d'etre of Irregular Forces.

Obvious? I had to repeat them, since you seem to forget about them. Besides I have always thought that SF are part of the armed forces, not part of MAD.

Again obvious - and it also side steps the very debatable idea that the US and NATO are competent against any regular military force that are not complete clowns.

Obvious? Even if we accept your presumptions given the current examples of other high-tech forces' ""competency"" like IDF 2006 or Russian Army 2008, the sheer amount of NATO's RMA gadgets and their trained crews will prevail in a HIC. According to you NATO troops do their job badly but I am positive the others are even worse. What about that White Paper? You seem to forget about it too. Probably there is a be a newer version of it for sure, which would be more interesting.

You do not need much in the way of military capability, intelligently employed to challenge NATO.

Could you please elaborate?

IMO, there is no IW. Only irregular Forces. How is an ambush, a suicide bomber or an IED something "irregular"?

What was irregular about spanish partidos? Or hussars in the 17-18th century? That they were not regular. Please do not get into semantics.

Modern War flows from modern politics. Nothing changes. All media is political, and therefore actors in the conflict. This has never not been the case, as long as media has existed.

So Clausewitz is right?
I agree with you that politics and war are as ancient as the first tribe or whatever. But these interlinked concepts change over the time. Like it or not. And the current armed forces are still organised, trained and equipped 80% for HIC, while in reality there is only 10-15% maximum chance for that. Yes even if the esteemed Colin S Gray and you say that things have remained the same, they are not. In the 'complacency kills' forum there is a video of ieaqi youngsters blowing up a bradley. I bet it was fueling the whole iraqi resistence's morale for a week or so. When was such small deed not Zaitsev's or Wittmann's heroic deeds capable of achieving such a feat?
Accept it or not the warning signals are here. It is up to us whether we recognize them. I do not dare to compare myself to them, yet De Gaulle and Liddell-Hart met deaf ears. Surprisingly, Guderian and Tuhachevski were listened to.

[William F. Owen]

Obvious? I had to repeat them, since you seem to forget about them. Besides I have always thought that SF are part of the armed forces, not part of MAD.

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

Obvious? Even if we accept your presumptions given the current examples of other high-tech forces' ""competency"" like IDF 2006 or Russian Army 2008, the sheer amount of NATO's RMA gadgets and their trained crews will prevail in a HIC. According to you NATO troops do their job badly but I am positive the others are even worse. What about that White Paper? You seem to forget about it too. Probably there is a be a newer version of it for sure, which would be more interesting.

It's not a presumption. It's not an issue of competency per se. It's an issue of evidence. When has NATO or the US fought a true peer competitor, since 1945? North Koreans, Chinese and Vietnamese? Iraqis?
90% of the IDF's problem in 2006 was an complete lack of preparation to fight a force the had vast amounts of knowledge about.

Could you please elaborate?

Imagine 5,000 "Irregulars" or even "Regulars" with, 1,000 RPGs/PKMs, 200 ATGMS, 200 MANPADS, and 6,000 122mm rockets, dug in across 10km frontage and depth, of hilly broken and close terrain. They don't even have to be that good, to cause all Armies a very major head ache.
This is obvious. It is not insightful.

Please do not get into semantics.

So don't get into the fact that words have meaning? Doesn't that really limit useful discussion? Simple question. What is Irregular Warfare, if not Warfare conducted by Irregulars? SF are not Irregulars and they do not - much as they like to say it - conduct irregular warfare, unless working with Irregulars.

So Clausewitz is right?

Concur

I agree with you that politics and war are as ancient as the first tribe or whatever. But these interlinked concepts change over the time.

Really? When? Sure they have evolved in terms of how they are practised, but not in terms of why.

Like it or not. And the current armed forces are still organised, trained and equipped 80% for HIC, while in reality there is only 10-15% maximum chance for that.

What were the % chances of 911? HIC is not a meaningful description. A Force trained to fight other regular forces, SHOULD be able to fight irregulars. A force that is trained and equipped to only fight irregular forces, is severely in danger from a competent (or even semi-competent) force.

Yes even if the esteemed Colin S Gray and you say that things have remained the same, they are not.

Humbled to be put in the same league as Colin Gray (who has invited me to speak at Reading at the end of the month!) but neither of us say things have remained the same. "We" keep having to point out that things folks say are "new" usually are not. We are not against innovation. We are against an ignorance of military history and lazy thinking in Strategic studies.

In the 'complacency kills' forum there is a video of ieaqi youngsters blowing up a bradley. I bet it was fueling the whole iraqi resistence's morale for a week or so. When was such small deed not Zaitsev's or Wittmann's heroic deeds capable of achieving such a feat?

Wittman's attack, stalled a Division, IIRC. Did the video kill anyone or alter any military action? IF not, it's irrelevant. Video of irrelevant action is irrelevant. Would Wittman's attack have been more tactically effective if filmed? I think not.

Accept it or not the warning signals are here. It is up to us whether we recognize them. I do not dare to compare myself to them, yet De Gaulle and Liddell-Hart met deaf ears. Surprisingly, Guderian and Tuhachevski were listened to.

Hybrid does not constitute a "warning" to anyone other than the catastrophically stupid. Will the wars of future see a mix of regular and irregular forces? Sure. All Wars do! That is not insightful.

...and Liddell-Hart predicted nothing, and gave rise to a whole raft of idiotic military thought. He engaged in fraud and ruthless self promotion to re-write his contribution to history. We would have been better off without him!

[Tukhachevskii]

[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/08/AR2009100804018.html"]
N. Korea Swiftly Expanding Its Special Forces
Commandos Trained in Terror Tactics In Effort to Maintain Military Threat

IMO this article supports the importance of understanding the implications behind the concept of hybrid warfare, even if you think is is unneeded. Our foes are also learning organizations, and based on their observations of our techniques and tactics and Iraq, they are adapting to present a more complex threat, which in their assessment will neutralize some of our technological advantages.

Forgive me for replying to the above post with a recycled variant of something I posted at the kings of war website but I thought the comments appropriate;

I have to say that making ‘world historical’ generalisations about the nature of future war is like an exercise in divination. I am not personally convinced by the ‘hybrid wars’ or ‘fourth generation warfare’ spiel. If one understands the historical trajectory of North Korean state formation once quickly comes to the conclusion that the most natural thing for a guerrilla regime to o is emphasis its guerrilla forces. This is not a new development. North Korea’s guerrilla or special forces units have been a feature of its armed forces since at least the sixties. Let’s not forget the tunnel incidents of the 60s and seventies and the famous raid (that date escapes me at present) where NK commandos attempted to assassinate President Park. The DPRK was utilising and emphasising its guerilla ops decades before the "Hybrid Fad" too off. While Simpkin, Westmorland and others were busy developing "Assault Breaker, Deep Battle, Air Land Battle" etc, the North Koreans had already realised conventional war between them and the US/SKorean armed forces would be suicidal. Defence industrial concerns, internal stability, sabre-rattling foreign policy (the need to appear fierce even if brittle) and the corporate interests of the Army (and its role in the regime) necessitated a huge conventional build-up.

Furthermore, one should be cognisant of the geopolitical realities of the region. North Korea is not Syria, or Israel or Russia. It really only borders one ‘hostile’ state and the foreign forces of the U.S. Furthermore, the six-party talks, the ballistic missile project and its nuclear weapons programme (whatever its status) bolsters North Korea’s security situation despite what it might appear. The North is diplomatically adept at brinkmanship as a style of diplomacy. But, and here the real issue, is North Korea’s ‘defence transformation’ (tongue in cheek) really about military strategy or regime survival? I think that latter. What I mean by this statement is that employing 1.2 million troops in conventional formations equipped with large numbers of domestically produced armoured vehicles when more than 70% of your domestic oil supply comes via China is not cost effective. Given the draughts and the famines in the 1990s which decimated the available manpower reserves which could be conscripted into the armed forces doesn’t it make more sense to demobilise them and re-divert them into civilian sectors of the economy?

On the other hand it also serves to cut down the influence of the armed forces, especially the geriatric general staff (the old school), who might be a threat to any change in leadership. After all, when Kim Jong-il came to power the first thing he did was rein in the KWP hardliners (hence Kwang Jang Yop’s departure to the South) and it makes sense to prune the hardliners from the military who may object to Kim’s son (whichever one takes the reins). Reducing the military’s power base by diverting forces away from the regular army, and thus into the jurisdiction of the now suitably aligned KWP, makes sense from the perspective of regime survival.

So what this rather rambling post is trying to say is that there’s always more going on than purely a case of ‘international socialisation into the norms of military modernity’ or “hybrid warfare” etc. Our opponents have more on their minds that participating in doctrinal/ideological/philosophical debates which have really rather more to do with intra-service rivalry (a la pork barrel politics- anyone remember Colin Powell’s adumbration of a two theatre warfighting capability as well as international “policing” after the Cold War?) than it has to do with an objective state of affairs. My (recycled) two pence worth.

[UrsaMaior]

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

You said SF are for deterrence. I said I thought they are part of the conventional forces.

It's not a presumption. It's not an issue of competency per se. It's an issue of evidence. When has NATO or the US fought a true peer competitor, since 1945? North Koreans, Chinese and Vietnamese? Iraqis?

It is an oxymoron Wilf. They are not capable since they have not fought a true peer? IMHO 1991 Iraq was close to true peer. Only the technological gap -remember Bekaa 1982?- was already too big between NATO and WP.

90% of the IDF's problem in 2006 was an complete lack of preparation to fight a force the had vast amounts of knowledge about.


With all respect this is a completely perfect definition for incapable. Not for the single soldier but for the leadership which in modern wars matters more or even most.

Imagine 5,000 "Irregulars" or even "Regulars" with, 1,000 RPGs/PKMs, 200 ATGMS, 200 MANPADS, and 6,000 122mm rockets, dug in across 10km frontage and depth, of hilly broken and close terrain. They don't even have to be that good, to cause all Armies a very major head ache.
This is obvious. It is not insightful.

With this scenario I would employ good old 2nd generation fire roller, lots of FAC, and CAS. Any lieutenant with average knowledge of military history should be able to handle it.
If it is South Lebanon you are talking about I would drop leaflets in all local languages, in the presence of international (yes swedish too observers) for a day or two, then do the same.

So don't get into the fact that words have meaning? Doesn't that really limit useful discussion? Simple question. What is Irregular Warfare, if not Warfare conducted by Irregulars? SF are not Irregulars and they do not - much as they like to say it - conduct irregular warfare, unless working with Irregulars.

Good point. IMHO it also contains more promoted use of propaganda (vs kinetic ops) e.g. lip service or other and other irregular means (yes IEDs and terror attacks too). VietCong did it too, IIRC they also used kamikeze style attacks also.

Really? When? Sure they have evolved in terms of how they are practised, but not in terms of why.


Hell sure there is a difference between under and above the "military horizon" aka warrior equals all able bodied men, or soldier who is either levied, conscritped or volunteer. Trade blockade was an every day symptom of wars in 18-19 century try to do it now! I am really sorry to say that but HIC is just as likely as a good old naval blockade or massing troops on the border. Before some fundamentalist jumps on me I am not saying we should throw away all heavy equipment like the brits in the sixties dumped their conventional capbilities in favor of nukes. I am saying why (along with you) never changes. How and by whom does and it is of importance.

What were the % chances of 911? HIC is not a meaningful description. A Force trained to fight other regular forces, SHOULD be able to fight irregulars. A force that is trained and equipped to only fight irregular forces, is severely in danger from a competent (or even semi-competent) force.

If we believe Michael Scheuer and the two chinese PLA colonels (I keep forgetting their names) the % was way higher than outsiders thought.

It is an oxymoron again. If my force is unable to counter IW why does it matter whether it comes from irregulars or regulars. Yes we saw in Fallujah and in South Lebanon that no IW actor can hold ground against a modern combined army.

You and col Gentile thinks that LIC and HIC are incompatible like Rh + and Rh - in blood types. Why? Light infantry regiments were the elite of their times. Why it cannot be done today? There is't any need for dozens of armour divisions anymore.

Humbled to be put in the same league as Colin Gray (who has invited me to speak at Reading at the end of the month!) but neither of us say things have remained the same. "We" keep having to point out that things folks say are "new" usually are not. We are not against innovation. We are against an ignorance of military history and lazy thinking in Strategic studies.


Agreed. See my siganture. Nothing new under the sun. Yet Vietnam was lost, the russians (think of their partisans!!) have lost A'stan and ... These and other lessons are not learned yet. Some are like the declararion by the US Army IIRC taht any hacker activity against US armed forces is considered a military attack. But that is only tactics. If China dumps dollar as a tool in oil revenues (which seriously threatens US interests) would there be a military solution? Of course not. The international system have changed significantly see G7 becoming G20. Most armies are still legging behind in adaptation.

Wittman's attack, stalled a Division, IIRC. Did the video kill anyone or alter any military action? IF not, it's irrelevant. Video of irrelevant action is irrelevant. Would Wittman's attack have been more tactically effective if filmed? I think not.

And Zaitsev helped to turn the battle of Stalingrad according to propaganda cuz the 'fascists had to keep their heads down slowing their advance'. Today where you have not won until CNN aired it (BTW whose quote is this?) morale (political and military alike) is more important than bodycount.

To be continued

[UrsaMaior]

Hybrid does not constitute a "warning" to anyone other than the catastrophically stupid. Will the wars of future see a mix of regular and irregular forces? Sure. All Wars do! That is not insightful.

Hybrid wars was a way to formulate 'times have changed' for those who were unfit to digest 4GW modell. Those who resist that a fundamental change is occuring in the international system does not accept any of these new 'schools'. Which reminds me of Jeune Ecole of the french navy. Did torpedo boats and subs rendered dreadnought unusable? No. Did they sink a number of them yes. Did they achieved a change? Yes. IMHO it is a good analogue to our discussion.

...and Liddell-Hart predicted nothing, and gave rise to a whole raft of idiotic military thought. He engaged in fraud and ruthless self promotion to re-write his contribution to history. We would have been better off without him!

I am aware that you don think too much of "the maneuver fraud" yet 'blitzkrieg' was also a way which significantly changed the way wars are approached. I think, no I am positive we are living in an age of similar changes. Yes blitzkrieg works on the same principles on which Alexander the Great fought. BUT if we strip the complex reality down too much we cant really tell the difference. Not because there is not any, rather cuz our view is too narrow.

[William F. Owen]

UrsaMajor:

Going round in circles here, because I am clearly not explaining myself in my answers.

a.) All I do and write is predicated on that fact I think we (US and UK) need a good deal of change. We are not good. We are far less good than we think we are, and we were never that good, back when we thought we still were. Some day soon, some bunch of semi-competent clowns, will kick our ass. If that's the case then we could be in real trouble with anyone really good.

b.) Hybrid, 4GW, EBO, SOD and all the other silly ideas are obstacles to effective change because they are all founded on a series of false premises. They are simply wrong!
They all assume we are currently competent but that the "rules" have somehow changed. They have not! We just cannot seem to pull our heads out of our collective asses, because we think that "new war" is the problem, when in fact we are the problem.

Additionally they seek to divert us from getting the really important stuff right. We cannot do that if we are paralysed by silly ideas like "war is now more complex." War has always been complex, and we mostly suck at being good it. - to be good, we just have to suck less than the others - so yes. Irony!

All for change, but let's base it on what we know works. Not silly pet theories which are forcing mechanisms for the terminally stupid.

[Fuchs]

UrsaMajor:

Going round in circles here, because I am clearly not explaining myself in my answers.

a.) All I do and write is predicated on that fact I think we (US and UK) need a good deal of change. We are not good. We are far less good than we think we are, and we were never that good, back when we thought we still were. Some day soon, some bunch of semi-competent clowns, will kick our ass. If that's the case then we could be in real trouble with anyone really good.

b.) Hybrid, 4GW, EBO, SOD and all the other silly ideas are obstacles to effective change because they are all founded on a series of false premises. They are simply wrong!
They all assume we are currently competent but that the "rules" have somehow changed. They have not! We just cannot seem to pull our heads out of our collective asses, because we think that "new war" is the problem, when in fact we are the problem.

Additionally they seek to divert us from getting the really important stuff right. We cannot do that if we are paralysed by silly ideas like "war is now more complex." War has always been complex, and we mostly suck at being good it. - to be good, we just have to suck less than the others - so yes. Irony!

All for change, but let's base it on what we know works. Not silly pet theories which are forcing mechanisms for the terminally stupid.

In short:
Competence is relative.


It's human to be imperfect. Sadly, this imperfection includes a widespread inability to admit imperfection, mediocrity or inferiority.


Imperfectness makes the whole thing interesting, though. Imagine we were perfectly competent - there would be nothing let to improve.

[UrsaMaior]

UrsaMajor:
a.) All I do and write is predicated on that fact I think we (US and UK) need a good deal of change. We are not good. We are far less good than we think we are, and we were never that good, back when we thought we still were. Some day soon, some bunch of semi-competent clowns, will kick our ass. If that's the case then we could be in real trouble with anyone really good.

With all respect Wilf it is Ursa Maior, the stellar constellation meaning big bear. Being 190 cms with 130kgs it is my nick since ages.

I was told by a senior hungarian (70+) general that between 1973 and 1982ish it was common belief that WP can break through the Fulda-gap. All they were afraid of was the nuclear retaliation after they reached the french border. In the second half of the 1980s they were working on what should they do after Berlin was occupied by the imperialists. You never really know how good you are unless you can match yourself against true peers.

I can put something valuable on it that your "semi-competent clowns" will not be a regular army but a bunch of kids / every day guys/gals out there
- for fun (like that russian guy who broke the unbreakeable 27 digit code of WiFi networks using a modified 3D graphics card)
- for profit (like MS-13)
- for the greater glory of some unknown minority (I dont have the slightest idea say pirese )
- on the payroll of a gov't (like that youth group responsible for shutting down half of Estonia's internet).

Of course ICBMs, YAL-1s, MLRSs and JDAMs and F-22s are good against some future advesary once in a decade, but it won't be a littoral combat ship or a Stryker MGS that will save your / our ass, but determined, creative, well educated and at last but not at least well paid grunts who will know what to do at the right time at the right place, and it won't be a targeted kill by a Hellfire or a collapsing building by a Tomahawk cruise missile, much rather a well placed video in a filesharing site or one single shot through a window by a good ol' 7,62×51 NATO round put into the right person and not into some bystander or even a one line news on the stock exchange billboard heralding the untimely death of an overzealous broker.

b.) Hybrid, 4GW, EBO, SOD and all the other silly ideas are obstacles to effective change because they are all founded on a series of false premises. They are simply wrong!
They all assume we are currently competent but that the "rules" have somehow changed. They have not! We just cannot seem to pull our heads out of our collective asses, because we think that "new war" is the problem, when in fact we are the problem.

Additionally they seek to divert us from getting the really important stuff right. We cannot do that if we are paralysed by silly ideas like "war is now more complex." War has always been complex, and we mostly suck at being good it. - to be good, we just have to suck less than the others - so yes. Irony!

All for change, but let's base it on what we know works. Not silly pet theories which are forcing mechanisms for the terminally stupid.

Sorry Wilf these are the words of Echevarria, col. Gentile and others who say 'if it ain't broke don't fix it!'. Well it is broke. If not now then in 2-5 yrs all of you will see exactly how REALLY broke it is in the very moment when your semi-competent clowns will kick our NATO/US/UK/Israeli a$$. You say these 'nonsenses' direct that much needed attention from REAL changes. I say these are really serious issues and I don't have the slightest doubt that among others William S Lind or Martin van Creveld (including some high ranking officers of the hungarian army) would stop spending time on it as soon as direct evidence shows that they are an obstacle in the way of better security. If the much predicted $hit happens you and the paleoconservative military thinkers cannot just simply say sorry we were wrong. I say let these unorthodoy theories have a try, thank God conventional deterrence and security measures work well enough giving us some time. If these acronyms turn out be a fool's errand you can still say we told you in advance but if not and the world nowadays is way more complicated than you think what then? I am sorry I am not willing to put my kids' future on your perception.

[Ken White]

...it won't be a littoral combat ship or a Stryker MGS that will save your / our ass, but determined, creative, well educated and at last but not at least well paid grunts who will know what to do at the right time at the right place...

This is likely true:

and it won't be a targeted kill by a Hellfire or a collapsing building by a Tomahawk cruise missile, much rather a well placed video in a filesharing site or one single shot through a window by a good ol' 7,62×51 NATO round put into the right person and not into some bystander or even a one line news on the stock exchange billboard heralding the untimely death of an overzealous broker.

This could also be true if the west does not awaken...

...Well it is broke. If not now then in 2-5 yrs all of you will see exactly how REALLY broke it is in the very moment when your semi-competent clowns will kick our NATO/US/UK/Israeli a$$.

We have a brief window and we'd better take advantage of it...

[William F. Owen]

With all respect Wilf it is Ursa Maior, the stellar constellation meaning big bear. Being 190 cms with 130kgs it is my nick since ages.

Apologies. I just assumed the spelling was for the constellation - Ursa Major - Maj, and me having studied Latin for 8 years! My mistake.

I was told by a senior hungarian (70+) general that between 1973 and 1982ish it was common belief that WP can break through the Fulda-gap.

Cannot speak for the Fulda Gap. My turf was the 1 BR Corps area and his views were not shared by the GSGF/WGF planing Staff between 1985-1991. The Soviets had very real concerns about 3 Shock Army even being able to reach the Rhine, without pre-emptively using nuclear weapons (x 48-9 in the 1 BR Corps area alone) - not sure where this gets us?

I can put something valuable on it that your "semi-competent clowns" will not be a regular army....

With respect, I doubt your powers of prediction. You simple cannot tell me "who, why, when or where." My guess is that High explosive, and small arms rounds will be what will cause the most casualties.

Of course ICBMs, YAL-1s, MLRSs and JDAMs and F-22s are good against some future advesary once in a decade, but it won't be a littoral combat ship or a Stryker MGS that will save your

F-22, MGS, and Littoral Combat ship = massive waste of time and money. Read my last 2 years of posts.
MLRS and JDAM are good. Tanks are always good. Well trained infantry are always good. Thermobaric is always good.

/ our ass, but determined, creative, well educated and at last but not at least well paid grunts who will know what to do at the right time at the right place,

...and that won't happen if all his skill sets and combat applications have been eroded by silly ideas and concepts. What you are saying works, worked in Korea.

much rather a well placed video in a filesharing site or one single shot through a window by a good ol' 7,62×51 NATO round put into the right person and not into some bystander or even a one line news on the stock exchange billboard heralding the untimely death of an overzealous broker.

Tom Clancy School of Military Thought? Sorry, but do you want to train for that or another Rwanda, Somalia, or Korea ?

Sorry Wilf these are the words of Echevarria, col. Gentile and others who say 'if it ain't broke don't fix it!'. Well it is broke.

So what you are saying is do not listen to military historians? - and neither man is saying 'if it ain't broke don't fix it!' - and if they are, I certainly am not!

All your SODs, EBOs, MW, 4GW and "Complex adaptive" stuff is a bunch of folks pumping personal agendas for their own sake to sell books, get PhDs whatever. Personally, I only see Tom Hammes as well intentioned. They all rely on a child like understanding of military history.

As concerns "Hybrid," I do not doubt the sincerity of my friend Frank Hoffman. I know why he came up with Hybrid. I just think it's a very bad solution to the problem, because like MW is has damaging flow down effects!

The rest is the worst kind of Snake Oil, "claiming to cure all known ills." - on the basis of no evidence. I have watched first hand, all these wooly ideas get one army in deep trouble. Rejecting them has done it no harm.

Why seek to be clever and inventive, when the entire history of warfare shows that simple and effective works better than all else?

There is nothing in Warfare we do not know how to do better - we just choose not to do it because in making that choice, a lot of human organisational and bureaucratic needs get trampled.

We can have serious, useful and detailed debate about future doctrine, training and equipment, but that cannot start until basic, fundamental, and enduring aspects of warfare are recognised. If it is a more dangerous world it's because we are becoming stupider.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Wifl,

As concerns "Hybrid," I do not doubt the sincerity of my friend Frank Hoffman. I know why he came up with Hybrid. I just think it's a very bad solution to the problem, because like MW is has damaging flow down effects!

Wilf I agree with your comments about a child like understanding of warfare and the snakeoil salesmen, but I don't get you're point about Hybrid being solution?

I read hybrid, 4th GW, and irregular warfare (this one is weaker) as being a description of a type of conflict that is different than conventional conflict. It's useful is its narrative, it tells a story about a type of conflict and hopefully helps Soldiers and their leaders focus on the appropriate training and tactics to deal with the threat.

A lot of conventional armies fared poorly against guerrilla tactics because they failed to adapt their tactics or understand the context of the fight they were in. There is a big difference between conventional armies waging a major battle for a piece of turf, compared to a conventional army waging battle against insurgents who are in various degrees protected and enabled by certain elements of the populace.

I wish we didn't have to use these terms, but my interpretation of history is without them we will default to training our army to only fight conventional wars. How many times in our history have we developed a capability and the knowledge to respond effectively to irregular threats and then discarded that capability?

While 4GW, Hybrid and IW are poorly defined and don't offer that much which is new, they still serve a purpose.

[William F. Owen]

If we can’t find the Afghan Inglorious Bastards and figure out why criminals without money, air support, artillery, armoured vehicles or large training centers can be compared to the Marines, we will never win this fight. We need to ask tough questions and stop making up the answers that please us.
LCol JJ Malevich, Canadian Exchange Officer, COIN Branch Chief US Army/ USMC Counter Insurgency Center.

I think this question is very germane to the issue under discussion.

[UrsaMaior]

Apologies. I just assumed the spelling was for the constellation - Ursa Major - Maj, and me having studied Latin for 8 years! My mistake.

Null problemo. I also corrected it in Wiki.

Cannot speak for the Fulda Gap. My turf was the 1 BR Corps area and his views were not shared by the GSGF/WGF planing Staff between 1985-1991. The Soviets had very real concerns about 3 Shock Army even being able to reach the Rhine, without pre-emptively using nuclear weapons (x 48-9 in the 1 BR Corps area alone) - not sure where this gets us?

We were talking about true peers. And yes in the period you mentioned they were desperate cuz they knew they are seriously disadvantaged in high tech.

With respect, I doubt your powers of prediction. You simple cannot tell me "who, why, when or where." My guess is that High explosive, and small arms rounds will be what will cause the most casualties.

I don't have a crystall ball so I am not predicting. I am guessing the possibilities and these are for something which is organised violence yet hardly even a small war.

F-22, MGS, and Littoral Combat ship = massive waste of time and money. Read my last 2 years of posts.

My bad I was not paying attention.

MLRS and JDAM are good. Tanks are always good.

Not always. In a HIC (btw why do't you like this expression?) they are priceless. In a metropolis they are a burden. (with the exception of MBTs developed for urban combat)

Well trained infantry are always good. Thermobaric is always good.

Concur.

...and that won't happen if all his skill sets and combat applications have been eroded by silly ideas and concepts. What you are saying works, worked in Korea.

If we agreed that CvC is right then there should be also no debate on "the trial of will". A good light infantryman (the symbol of hybrid/4gw/iw but not the onyl asset of it) is creative, a good marksman, excelling in MOUT, has cultural understanding (ie does not think he is a crusader to convert the locals etc.) and is able to handle the media well. He (sorry gals!) operates on foot, pays the locals for food (ie not logistics intensive) etc.
I don't see any contradiction with classical infantry requirements. Yes he is less likely to be a good subordinate, and definitely not someone the current NATO hierarchy will promote (see Nagl's comments in his book on SF officers) but he can win us those pesky wars which are ahead of us.

Tom Clancy School of Military Thought? Sorry, but do you want to train for that or another Rwanda, Somalia, or Korea ?

Glad that you brought him up. In William Gibson's Neuromancer (1984) he has predicted a similar kind of war (lotsa SOCOM, economical maneuvers and counter satellite war). But this is not new. Reagan has used the USA's econimical power to defeat the soviets. Why is it impossible that other actors are doing the same? Sometimes people from the outside see better than people inside limited by their own priorities.

So what you are saying is do not listen to military historians? - and neither man is saying 'if it ain't broke don't fix it!' - and if they are, I certainly am not!

Why are Lind, Creveld, Hoffman and others not military historians? I say listen to ALL of them even to the strangest ideas and let us see what we can come up with. You know thesis+antithesis=synthesis. IMHO and please correct me if I am wrong most of them says WMDs + CVBGs + RMA gadgets = unchallanged US superiority. I am saying that you must add media and free global markets into this equation.

All your SODs, EBOs, MW, 4GW and "Complex adaptive" stuff is a bunch of folks pumping personal agendas for their own sake to sell books, get PhDs whatever. Personally, I only see Tom Hammes as well intentioned. They all rely on a child like understanding of military history.

Very well could be. Yet you cannot deny there is some truth in what they say and some jealousy behind their refusal on the other side. If they were not telling some truth it would be immediately evident that they are fake. If you dont like Fuller see what happened to Guderian or Tuhachevski. At the end they were right. Not 100%, but right.

As concerns "Hybrid," I do not doubt the sincerity of my friend Frank Hoffman. I know why he came up with Hybrid. I just think it's a very bad solution to the problem, because like MW is has damaging flow down effects!

IMHO the idea was to sell the change in the circumstances to those who normally close their eyes in the very first moment they see something which do not fits in their universe.

The rest is the worst kind of Snake Oil, "claiming to cure all known ills." - on the basis of no evidence. I have watched first hand, all these wooly ideas get one army in deep trouble. Rejecting them has done it no harm.

Those who claim to found the philosophers' stone deserve this kind of treatment. But I don't see any of the above mentioned theoriticians doing it. Maybe a small percentage of spin offs yes but some 'B' class copy cats should not discredit a honest and forward looking concept. If you mean IDF with the above it was not the ideas but their misunderstanding which lead to trouble. Like you wrote not preparing against an enemy which was well known and not making calculations about our actions' effects was a disaster from the very beginning. And it is not connected to any acronyms. It is a pure simple and often human mistake.

Why seek to be clever and inventive, when the entire history of warfare shows that simple and effective works better than all else?

YEs. IMHO it is simple and effective to talk to locals, to eat their food and look into their eyes without sunglasses opposed to inventing new tortures, reinventing the MGS wheel (see C1 Centauro), or using an air superiority fighter as AWACS.

There is nothing in Warfare we do not know how to do better - we just choose not to do it because in making that choice, a lot of human organisational and bureaucratic needs get trampled.

Good point. But this kind of systematic laziness -remember Teutoburg?- or infighting and incompetence at Adrianople can lead to serious and lasting defeat. Why on earth should I stand in silence watching some people with good intentions, a huge ego and almost zero knowledge of the real world
leading the legions into obliteration?

We can have serious, useful and detailed debate about future doctrine, training and equipment, but that cannot start until basic, fundamental, and enduring aspects of warfare are recognised. If it is a more dangerous world it's because we are becoming stupider.

Concur. Our (the west's) dominance is coming to its end. We can rush it or we can delay it. The basics of war are the same whatever kind of approach we are talking about. It is us who make us weaker.
I don't understand the debates e.g raging about Obama's nobel prize. If we don't find a solution to transatlantic issues soon others will find a way to exploit this breach. No matter how they deny it the russians have a complex plan using all their resources to exert their influence over Europe again, the chinese have since more than a decade a "Grand strategy" to overcome their weakness in conventional weaponry (and are working hard to close this gap) and we are having our 35437th 'whose is bigger' contest. You are right Wilf the means are not new (diplomacy, economics, military etc.) but this kind of interdisciplinary, complex approach is not something we have seen before. And we are lagging behind in this very area.

[Taiko]

A little late but none the less:

Those who resist that a fundamental change is occuring in the international system does not accept any of these new 'schools'.

Interesting, so what has changed?

Despite the best efforts of liberals, and their international institutions, human nature has not changed. For the majority of the earth's population life is poor, nasty, brutal and short. The international system is still a permissive environment that is dominated by fear, honor and greed. Wars are still a continuation of politics by other means, even the one happening in Afghanistan right now. The struggle for power is still the only game in town. State's still convert economic growth into military power, or did you miss China's 60th anniversary celebrations? Great powers still rise and decline. Other powers are more than eager to stake their claim to regional hegemony and great power status. Nope, not much has really changed since Thucydides put pen to paper.

Our (the west's) dominance is coming to its end

Myself and some 5000 odd nuclear tipped ICBM will disagree. The problem with 'hybrid warfare' is that it conflates the actual threat potential of the adversary to a delusory level. When a country can meet or exceed nuclear parity with the West, that is when we will be facing a true threat to our existence. Otherwise, in many cases, the West is just attempting to get involved with conflicts that have little to no real strategic value, and pose little to no real strategic threat. This is the point that Enchevarria et'al are making and they are correct.

[Fuchs]

A little late but none the less:
For the majority of the earth's population life is poor, nasty, brutal and short.

That's quite a mischaracterization.

"poor" - most are poor by Western standards, but human perception of wealth is relative. Half of the population has by definition above-average wealth and they feel like it. Absolute material wealth is improving in much of the world as well.

"nasty" - ?

"brutal" - there' peace in most places. War and violent crime are the exception. The world looked very different in this regard in 1830.

"short" - 143 of 224 countries/territories in the CIA World Factbook have a life expectancy of 70 years or more. https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...data_2102.text That is certainly a huge change!

[William F. Owen]

I don't have a crystall ball so I am not predicting. I am guessing the possibilities and these are for something which is organised violence yet hardly even a small war.

If it's not war, why are we worried? Only wars can effectively set forth policy using violence. The lesson of 911 is that it didn't work. More US troops now in the ME than when he started and AQ is not doing so well.

(btw why do't you like this expression?)

Because it neither accurately or usefully describe the condition it attempts to. I merely differentiate between Regular and Irregular actors, not their means or methods.

A good light infantryman (the symbol of hybrid/4gw/iw but not the onyl asset of it) is creative, a good marksman, excelling in MOUT, has cultural understanding (ie does not think he is a crusader to convert the locals etc.) and is able to handle the media well.

Just say infantryman (not light) and develop all the reasonable levels of skills and education and I agree with you. I just think Hybrid and 4GW are actually blocks to doing that well.

He (sorry gals!) operates on foot, pays the locals for food (ie not logistics intensive) etc.

Again, operates on foot - WHEN REQUIRED, and has the necessary logistic support. Local food can wipe out a platoon in 2 hours! Eat only what is necessary to build useful contacts, and only some eat, not everyone! - Lessons from the 1890's.

Glad that you brought him up. In William Gibson's Neuromancer (1984) he has predicted a similar kind of war (lotsa SOCOM, economical maneuvers and counter satellite war).

As a once published novelist, I am sceptical of fictions utility in this domain. Story is not a good medium for technical discussion.

Why are Lind, Creveld, Hoffman and others not military historians?

Van Creveld is a military historian. Lind has never published any military history that I have seen. Yes he has an MA in History. Not sure I would describe Frank Hoffman as an historian either. - but this misses the point.

Military history is the primary guide to military thought as concerns identifying what actually took place, what worked, what did not and why. NOT coming up with concepts and then using history to prove them!

I say listen to ALL of them even to the strangest ideas and let us see what we can come up with.

...or let's study history and the art of warfare as we know it to be the evidence supports.

IMHO and please correct me if I am wrong most of them says WMDs + CVBGs + RMA gadgets = unchallanged US superiority.

Yes, idiots are part of the problem.

I am saying that you must add media and free global markets into this equation.

OK, but tell me why.

If you dont like Fuller see what happened to Guderian or Tuhachevski. At the end they were right. Not 100%, but right.

There is a pervading myth that Fuller "influenced" Guderian and Tuchaschevsky. It is a myth mostly spread by Liddle-Hart. Yes they read his work, and rejected it. Triandifillov, Tuchaschevsky and Guderian were old-school guys working with tools they understood or could reasonably develop, to solve immediate and pressing problems in warfare. It is very debatable as to how much the detail of their writing actually survived WW2.

IMHO the idea was to sell the change in the circumstances to those who normally close their eyes in the very first moment they see something which do not fits in their universe.

So sell rather than use evidence and argument based on facts?

If you mean IDF with the above it was not the ideas but their misunderstanding which lead to trouble. Like you wrote not preparing against an enemy which was well known and not making calculations about our actions' effects was a disaster from the very beginning. And it is not connected to any acronyms. It is a pure simple and often human mistake.

They understood SOD. They invented it. They also had a perfectly good understanding of EBO. They had studied more than most people. It just didn't work when employed against someone who thought it strategically irrelevant.
The lack of Land Warfare preparation, based on what was clearly known, is mostly attributable to beliefs that flowed from the above combined with a misallocation of funds caused by much the same reason.

YEs. IMHO it is simple and effective to talk to locals, to eat their food and look into their eyes without sunglasses

There was never a time on the last 100 years, and some time before that, the British Army was teaching that very stuff.

Good point. But this kind of systematic laziness -remember Teutoburg?- or infighting and incompetence at Adrianople can lead to serious and lasting defeat. Why on earth should I stand in silence watching some people with good intentions, a huge ego and almost zero knowledge of the real world leading the legions into obliteration?

Answer that and you have a place in history.

Our (the west's) dominance is coming to its end.

What dominance?
Mogadishu 93 - a bunch of khat chewing morons, who couldn't shoot straight defeated a US Policy with 18 KIA. I doubt Farah Idid ever read CvC but he knew how to apply him perfectly. Pity Clinton did not.
There is no evidence we had any dominance apart from assertions that we did. That's my starting point. Not the "oh god! It's all changed and is very complicated" routine.

[Taiko]

That's quite a mischaracterization.

"poor" - most are poor by Western standards, but human perception of wealth is relative. Half of the population has by definition above-average wealth and they feel like it. Absolute material wealth is improving in much of the world as well.

"nasty" - ?

"brutal" - there' peace in most places. War and violent crime are the exception. The world looked very different in this regard in 1830.

"short" - 143 of 224 countries/territories in the CIA World Factbook have a life expectancy of 70 years or more. https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...data_2102.text That is certainly a huge change!

The international system is still a permissive environment that is dominated by fear, honor and greed. Wars are still a continuation of politics by other means, even the one happening in Afghanistan right now. The struggle for power is still the only game in town. State's still convert economic growth into military power, or did you miss China's 60th anniversary celebrations? Great powers still rise and decline. Other powers are more than eager to stake their claim to regional hegemony and great power status. Nope, not much has really changed since Thucydides put pen to paper.

[Fuchs]

The international system is still a permissive environment that is dominated by fear, honor and greed. Wars are still a continuation of politics by other means, even the one happening in Afghanistan right now.
The struggle for power is still the only game in town. State's still convert economic growth into military power, or did you miss China's 60th anniversary celebrations? Great powers still rise and decline. Other powers are more than eager to stake their claim to regional hegemony and great power status. Nope, not much has really changed since Thucydides put pen to paper.

The international system is coined by cooperation and restrictions. Those who violate the system and seed fear are exceptions.
I would use "prestige" instead of "honor" in the context of an "international system".
Greed - well, that's kinda how we keep us fed.

Isn't much of the fighting in Afghanistan a produce of revenge and professional behaviour (mercenary insurgents)? That's something different than politics.
Institutions wage war for political ends, but not all groups do so.

About China's parade:
http://china-defense.blogspot.com/20...-of-china.html
Not really that exceptional if compared to Third World 60's parades.