Hybrid Warfare (merged thread)

[goesh]

You betcha' slap and it gave us the ol' zip gun too - somwhere in your Dept.s evidence room there are probably one or two stashed somehwere covered in dust. From flint-tipped 'hellfire' missles of 10,000 BC to our platforms of today, its almost moot to regard the concept of "hybrid" as something modern but that's just one man's opinion. I see a pattern change though that is distinct, mainly the quality of civilian input and direct involvement in military affairs in some very non-traditional ways, hence my previous qualifier of "almost moot" - now a camo tu tu would be a hybrid in my opinion.

[Ken White]

And, yeah, it sure looks hybrid...
LINK

[jmm99]

after some thought, that the camo tutu is "kinda cute"; but that it just isn't me - damme.

More seriously, this seems astute:

goesh
I see a pattern change though that is distinct, mainly the quality of civilian input and direct involvement in military affairs in some very non-traditional ways, hence my previous qualifier of "almost moot"

The mix of civilian and military has raised and will raise some complex legal issues. I don't have a name for what we should call that area legally, but it goes beyond the traditional laws of armed conflict.

Getting down to the very basics, LOAC looks to:

1. Is there an armed conflict ?

2. What is the status of the conflicting "powers" (state or non-state) ?

3. What is the status of the individuals in the area of armed conflict (basically, regular combatant, irregular combatant and civilian) ?

So, what is the status of a soldier who is doing what is normally a civilian task ? And, what is the status of a civilian who is very much integrated into the military structure, but is performing what is normally a civilian task ?

It is one thing to have the Marine Corps and Peace Corps with a bright line separation between the two. But what happens legally when you mix them (a camo tutu in effect) ?

More questions than answers, I'm afraid.