This is certain the "flavor of the week". We just read a monograph called "Square Pegs in Round Holes" by the Australian Land Warfare Study Center where the authors expound on their theory of "Complex Irregular Warfare (CIW)". According to the authors,

"the proponent will adopt some ora ll of the four tenets of traditional irregular wafare but wll also exploit contemporary society to further their ends. An adversary is likely to take advantage of globalization and use technology to attack or cripple a state."

Most people will agree that the majority of potential enemies do not want to fight the U.S. conventional on coventional force. That being said, it makes perfect sense that hybrid war or CIW harnesses the strengths of the attackers while maintaining the flexibility to exploit limited conventional means for offensive action. I do not think this is earth-shattering to anyone...while the methods of warfare always evolve, the nature does not. From Sun Tzu to P4, no one disputes understanding the background, the nature, the goals, and the culture of an enemy is important to develop an effective national strategy translated by the Operational level commander down to the tactical executors.

That being said, certain elements and leaders of the U.S. army were too slow to realize things had changed. Whether wedded to their traditional branch outlook, reliving the glory days of the cold war, or just refusing to see the changing methods of the enemy, these writers of "hybrid/CIW" are serving a useful function: they stimulate debate in the professional military communities. Whether you buy their theory or think its just another way to make some $$$ by publishing these articles, people ARE talking about it, having discussions, some heated, and walking away thinking about the problem. If anything, these think-pieces emphasize the necessity to frame a problem before we jump into planning. By taking the time to frame a problem before rushing into making the powerpoint slide or pulling up an old templated NSS or tactical order from time past, our planners and leaders have a better chance of gaining a much more in-depth understanding of the obstacles ahead.