Hybrid Warfare (merged thread)

[Bob's World]

In my opinion this entire argument continues to chase the wrong line of logic. It is not a case of warfare changing. What we are experiencing is a case of the environment in which warfare occurs changing. This may seem a subtle point, but it is essential to the argument.

The principles of war, just like the principles of insurgency, do not change much. The one thing that in recent years has changed very much is the shift from a bi-polar, Cold War, non-globalized environment to a multi-polar, post-Cold War, Globalized environment.

This means that static situations are once again actively seeking a new “normal,” as they emerge from Cold War controls; that this is taking place in an environment that is not shaped by the balancing of two super powers; and most historically important, that it is taking place in this globalized environment, that empowers populaces as never before, and also has enabled the rise of non-state organizations like al Qaeda to be able to conduct Unconventional Warfare in a very state-like way to incite insurgency among disparate populaces, and also for quasi-state organizations like Hezbollah to similarly operate in a zone above the level of gang activity and its associated inefficiencies, but also below the level of state activity and its associated responsibilities and vulnerabilities to state power response.

In short, it is not about a change of warfare, it is about a change of environment.

[slapout9]

Bobs World, What about this idea. We are confusing Types of Warfare with Strategy!

War doesn't change as you point out but Strategies will evolve and adapt as need be based upon the opponent and situation. What we call UW,FID,Insurgency,COIN,4GW, are not types of warfare but Strategies!!

[Bob's World]

Words are important.

When one takes a position that "War has changed," and the pentagon buys into it and begins to restructure itself to fight and think about this new type of war, I believe you risk building the solution to the wrong problem, and thereby putting our nation at risk.

When one takes a position that "the Environment is changing," and the pentagon buys into that and sets about ensuring that it does not attempt to frame every emerging problem by an obsolete construct, 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.

[Steve Blair]

Now all we can do is hope that the right folks are listening....

I'd also hazard a guess that part of the hype (as has been commented on before in numerous SWC threads) has to do with folks wanting to "make a name for themselves" by "discovering" this new type of war...which doesn't really exist. It's far easier to make something up than it is to do the legwork and go back through things. Most of the patterns we're seeing now have happened before...it's the changes in the environment (cultural, technological, and so on) that have really changed the dynamics.

[Cavguy]

I'm continuing this thread over here

[slapout9]

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
http://www.usafa.af.mil/df/inss/OCP/OCP52.pdf

[Surferbeetle]

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

[George L. Singleton]

...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.

Words are important to us but what about to our enemies today?

- 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.