Hybrid Warfare (merged thread)

[wm]

What this portends is endless violence, without ultimate victory or defeat, a new Hundred Year's War. Oh, there might be the occasional Agincourt, but mostly it means pointless conflict decided in the end more by geography and demographics than by military excellence.

Now, just because I don't like it, that doesn't mean it won't happen. What it does imply is the continuing 'de-professionalization of violence'. Whenever warfare is endemic, civil and military roles inevitably merge, the rules of civilized behavior change, and the innocent bystander becomes more and more the target of 'military' operations. Except the whole concept of innocent bystander becomes obsolete. This is why medieval warfare was mostly a matter of plunder, induced famine, assassination, rapine, raids, and ambuscade, with the odd stand-up fight thrown in every other decade or so. Who's to say that the American public, after ten or twenty or fifty years, might not decide to use similar tactics against someone who can't be defeated any other way?
(SNIP)
Mostly, I want all the deep thinkers to either stop shying away from the implications of what they are forecasting, or spare the rest of us their repackaged revolutions.

Eden,

Well said.

However, I suspect that a better parallel is the 30 Years War rather than the 100 Years War. 4GW folks point to the Peace of Westphalia as a watershed point that ushered in what these theorists describe as 3GW. I suspect that instead it represents a point in time that "civilized people" chose (after facing the chaos you described--"plunder, induced famine, assassination, rapine, raids, and ambuscade, with the odd stand-up fight thrown in") to revisit how to organize themselves to protect the innocents of the world. I would not be surprised that we are at another such watershed moment, when the innocents (or their representatives) decide that it is time to shake up the folks who are running their current "protection racket."

I am reminded of the poles represented by Sheriff Bart and Hedley Lamarr in Blazing Saddles. When folks get fed up enough, they don't "vote the rascals out." Instead, they get more physical. They ride the rascals out of town on rails or worse. Then they set up a new sheriff or turn to the county marshall to protect them. If the county marshal was the problem, they are probably going to look more locally. If the source of the trouble was the local authorities, they may go for a more regional security approach to limit the local abuse of power. I suspect we are just seeing a swing of the pendulum between two focal points of power--one is centralized and the other is decentralized (or local) protection.

[wm]

Lest readers think I am jesting with my use of Blazing Saddles, I offer up the conflict between the townsfolk, represented by Jimmy Stewart's Ransom Stoddard, and the cowboys/cattlemen, represented by Lee Marvin's Liberty Valance and the Major portrayed by John Carradine, from The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance as well. Even John Wayne's character, the rancher Tom Doniphan, recognized that the forces responsible for protection were changing, which is why he chose not to reveal who really was the man who shot Liberty Valence. I could list many other examples across many cultures, but I will just note the Japanese tale of the 47 Ronin as a final example of my point about the swing of the pendulum of legitimacy for "defending" the people.

[Rob Thornton]

Slap - I don't know, to me we're both talking about a 3 legged stool - we're just looking at it from a slightly different angle Best, Rob

[Ken White]

you've got it pegged...

[Ken White]

Folks are always changing the rules and in discussions, there are always "well, if..." things thrown in. None of those things you posit happened to get to this point:

"...and you have a good set of conditions to better understanding the difficulty in considering cause and effect."

This did happen:

...In the end, it may not matter - the NYGs went home the winner - The Giants not only had a plan, but had the where-withall to take advantage of the conditions as they emerged.

With the last clause being by far the most important part of all that. Way far (plans have a tendency not to survive the first contact as they say)...

I suspect that you comparing me to a dead Prussian is geriatric abuse. I'll have to consult my Attorney on that...

[Rob Thornton]

nice one - plus a good swing at the dangers of interpretive history and the difficulty of est. causal relationships. Rob

[Rob Thornton]

Slap - I wanted to think about the comparrison a bit more.

Ends, Ways and Means has its greatest value at the policy and strategy end (and to a lesser degree the operational) - not because it "should" be so, but because it "is" so. This has as much to do with the influence of domestic politics and resources as it does with considering providing long term direction that works through changes in conditions METT-TC writ strategic), and remain part of our more enduring strategic culture. Resources - how they are derived, allocated, play a hefty role in determining how military power will be employed to achieve some objective or end. Applying ends, ways and means at the tactical level can lead to inertia - either unable to put a body in motion to rest, or unable to put a body at rest into motion - depends on what your trying to accomplish.

Method, Motive, Opportunity I think has its greatest value at the tactical and to a lesser degree the operational, I think. This is where the first hints of opportunity often show up, where quick action(s) can be leveraged best, and where if you are willing to see things as they are; what you see can be the closest to what is - its why we try not to second guess our field commanders and leaders from afar (time, space, and immediate interests). Applying Method, Motive, Opportunity at the strategic level could wind up keeping us in the short term with regard to pursuing our own interests - it may also distance the relationship between policy and war - one that is contentious enough as it is.

I do think they are pretty much the same three legged stool, but depending on the way you're using it, it might look different.

I apologize if I've short-sheeted the concept, but words have meaning, and often mean different things to different people. What I think is most important is the discussion that is built around the terms toward a better understanding of the subject.

Best, Rob

[Rob Thornton]

Hey Greycap,

Thinking about the Super Bowl example: the two teams knew well what victory is all about in relative term. Are we sure that opponents in hybrid war share the same idea of victory ?

What is that "first question" you should ask yourself before embarking upon war? - "What is the nature of the war I am embarking upon?" I think that means not only asking what it means to you, and how you will wage it, but what are the stakes of the outcome for your enemie(s) and how might they wage it. What are the possible outcomes for yourself and the enmy and how will that effect other things. The concept of the "Golden Bridge" - or allowing some option to the enemy other then win or die (could be political death) - what does it mean to him? What does it mean to you?

Makes you wonder - seems like the only folks that did not get the word that the Pats were going to win were the NYG. Someody said something last night about Green Bay being a better FB team - but the NYGs wanted it more. Will with a big "W" can make up for an awful lot.

Best, Rob

[slapout9]

Slap - I wanted to think about the comparison a bit more.

Ends, Ways and Means has its greatest value at the policy and strategy end (and to a lesser degree the operational) - not because it "should" be so, but because it "is" so. This has as much to do with the influence of domestic politics and resources as it does with considering providing long term direction that works through changes in conditions METT-TC writ strategic), and remain part of our more enduring strategic culture. Resources - how they are derived, allocated, play a hefty role in determining how military power will be employed to achieve some objective or end. Applying ends, ways and means at the tactical level can lead to inertia - either unable to put a body in motion to rest, or unable to put a body at rest into motion - depends on what your trying to accomplish.

Method, Motive, Opportunity I think has its greatest value at the tactical and to a lesser degree the operational, I think. This is where the first hints of opportunity often show up, where quick action(s) can be leveraged best, and where if you are willing to see things as they are; what you see can be the closest to what is - its why we try not to second guess our field commanders and leaders from afar (time, space, and immediate interests). Applying Method, Motive, Opportunity at the strategic level could wind up keeping us in the short term with regard to pursuing our own interests - it may also distance the relationship between policy and war - one that is contentious enough as it is.

I do think they are pretty much the same three legged stool, but depending on the way you're using it, it might look different.

I apologize if I've short-sheeted the concept, but words have meaning, and often mean different things to different people. What I think is most important is the discussion that is built around the terms toward a better understanding of the subject.

Best, Rob

Darn Rob, you almost had me convinced.... but I think Motive ,Method and opportunity can be applied to any level but it is greatest at the Grand Strategic level heres why. Motive is the simple Why should we go to War... Why did we invade Afghanistan ? Because AQ attacked us...Why do we want to get AQ because that's where UBL is...and why do we want to get UBL...becuase he is the leader of AQ that attacked our people and destroyed our property. The motive to attack is uniting and sustaining. Now apply the same reasoning to Iraq?? Saddam never attacked us, he didn't have any WMD, he didn't like Iran. See how understanding Motive leads to Strategic clarity and unity and if you get it wrong how it can backfire against you? I don't think Ends has that kind of clarity to it. That has been George's biggest problem he cannot define a good motive for attacking Iraq but the American people have and do support attacks against AQ and UBL because we have a good motive to do so.

Speaking of three legged stools did you here the one about the three legged RedNeck?

Also speaking of dead Prussians in the front of Galula's book on COIN theory (capter one I think) he makes a great statment where he says Reveolutionary War changes Big C's "War is policy carried out by other means" to "War is the Policy of a certain party inside a country to be carried out by EVERY means".!!! Sounds like Hybrid War to me. Later

[Graycap]

Thinking about the Super Bowl example: the two teams knew well what victory is all about in relative term. Are we sure that opponents in hybrid war share the same idea of victory ?

Only a doubt.

Now back in lurking position...

Graycap