Hybrid Warfare (merged thread)

[Ron Humphrey]

As we all know. Therefor, it seems to me that it is incumbent on everyone who engages in warfare at any level, from the politician who sends units forth to the last Snuffy (yes, even him...) to read as much as possible on the topic and to discuss with others the various potentials and probabilities. Everyone who addresses war should be noted to the extent possible. Discussion is important but I've learned far more over a couple of drinks than I've learned in structured discussions. The important thing is to kick it around.

We are confronted with the fact that most of our political masters will not do this, therefor it's important that all practitioners do it and be thorough in their study so they can give the best possible advice. I think, though, that two thoughts should always remain in mind:

1. The theoreticians are human, that means they have experience (or not), education, heredity and environmental factors that have shaped them and their thoughts and thus, consciously or not, are subject to have some biases and possibly some gaps in knowledge. They also write for a specialist audience -- more frequently for other theorists than for practitioners --and thus these two factors can skew what they write or say and one is well advised to read or listen, evaluate and take that which ones instincts say are valuable while not hewing to anyone's line. That simply because no one has all the answers.

This is why I find myself hesitant to sign off on consistantly re-terming and putting the information in different contexts until it gains acceptance By the time we get that buy-in, will what they heard or accepted be very similar to what we were trying to say at all?

I think about how so many have taken the phrase " there is not a military solution to Iraq " and it has been twisted and prodded to mean so many different things; many of which are not much help to us.

People hear, learn, or take what they want from dialogue thus the more they get to choose from the more the choices reflect what they want and not necessarily what is or was intended.

I have now finished the paper and all in all it speaks succesfully to much of what has and is being debated at echelons above reality. I cannot find much that doesn't ring true in many contexts, yet I would love to have seen them tie in how current international players much larger than Hezbollah and Hamas are truly utilizing the capabiliies of networking and synchronous irregular and more conventional warfare as well as many other aspects of the UW / IW / WK(who knows) what else n efforts to affect ,transform, or otherwise just plain make trouble in any and all ways possible in order to acheive their goals.
IE( Iran, Russia, AQ , Hezbollah, Hamas, Half a dozen groups minimum in Africa, Libya Etc)

If you bring answers to the table without the readers getting an eyefull of what it really means now, in your face then they will generally look at it from a predictive vantage point. And as most humans do they will figure that they are about as good at seeing the future as you are.

2. At the end of the day, you'll be on a hill watching your Division deploy to meet the Screaming Horde approaching at from 3 to 300 kilometers per hour. Or you'll deplane with your company or troop in the middle of nowhere with skulking opponents everywhere. Or you'll be on a lonely street at Oh-dark-thirty wondering whether to shoot the two vaguely human shapes that seem to be approaching you. None of the theoreticians will be there with you...

You are as always eloquent in the simplicity of truth

[Ken White]

Mike Innes said:

"Personally, I'm skeptical not of the uses of new labels and reconceptualization in general, but of overlabeling and relabeling the issues of now. A lot of the confusion and debate on what is and what isn't "new", I think, is gobbledygook longhand for "what we don't yet understand" and "insufficient historical hindsight to get a grip". In this case, though, I think Hoffman's work is worth considering; so's Bousquet's."

That coincides with my thoughts. There are good ideas in both papers but IMO, neither really surfaces anything new (unless I missed something, always possible ), they've just applied new tags while packaging a lot of disparate factors together rather well. Quite well, in fact.

One could've hoped for more illustrative discussion. Ron makes that point pretty well, I think:

"If you bring answers to the table without the readers getting an eyefull of what it really means now, in your face then they will generally look at it from a predictive vantage point. And as most humans do they will figure that they are about as good at seeing the future as you are."

However, Wilf really sums the issue up rather neatly with this:

"I think we need ask, why we want to describe something in terms terms used. What Frank has held back from saying is that "the US/UK Forces may be too stupid to adapt.""

My sensing is that both nations have a bunch of smart guys, many of whom have already figured out in detail what Hoffman and Bosquet have packaged neatly and named aptly. I think the issue is not that we're too stupid because I don't believe we are; I think the question is more correctly "...are the US/UK forces going to be able to overcome their bureaucratic leanings and risk aversion in order to adapt in a timely manner?"

With that, I'll go ponder Hybrid mixed blended chaoplexic 5.5G warfare while I sip my nightcap...

[marct]

I think that Bosquet does a nice job of laying out the role of metaphor in organization; it's a good paper. I'm a little surprised, although not really I 'spose, that he didn't extend his analysis of metaphor to other, non-state groups since it seems pretty obvious that they are based on ones not included. Still reading the Hoffman piece...

My sensing is that both nations have a bunch of smart guys, many of whom have already figured out in detail what Hoffman and Bosquet have packaged neatly and named aptly. I think the issue is not that we're too stupid because I don't believe we are; I think the question is more correctly "...are the US/UK forces going to be able to overcome their bureaucratic leanings and risk aversion in order to adapt in a timely manner?"

Let me toss out several more general questions, then, based on Ken's restatement:

1. what metaphor governs the organization of US/UK forces ("life is like a bowl of....")?
2. what metaphor(s) govern our opponents?

Marc

[Mike Innes]

I think that Bosquet does a nice job of laying out the role of metaphor in organization; it's a good paper. I'm a little surprised, although not really I 'spose, that he didn't extend his analysis of metaphor to other, non-state groups since it seems pretty obvious that they are based on ones not included.

Actually, Bousquet's work - he has a full length manuscript coming out sometime later this year - primarily focuses on efforts/approaches/concepts to impose order on the battlefield, rather than on the "chaoplexic" nature of battelfield threats themselves. That would be the next step, I suppose - or more probably, though I've yet to read Hoffman's Hybrid Wars, this is where he and Bousquet complement each other. I'll be better able to comment once I've actually read FH's work... and that's all from me until I've done so. Later.

Mike

[wm]

[*]what metaphor governs the organization of US/UK forces ("life is like a bowl of....")?

I can't speak for the UK but, the US seems trapped in this simile:

"Life is like a crap sandwich. Some days you take a big bite; some days you take a little bite; but every day you take a bite. However, the more "bread" you have, the less crap you have to swallow in each bite."

Now you know why everyone scrabbles around so much over resources and funding.

[wm]

The following is a clarification of the simile in my prior post, as it applies to Hoffman's essay.

I think what Hoffman has written is an example of trying to persuade others to give one what it thinks it needs. In this case, the perceived need is for the USMC to get more budget resources to maintain its autonomy. This quotation from the executive summary pretty much crystallizes the point of the paper:

We believe that the Marine Corps is particularly well suited for this security environment . . . . The Marine Corps has proven to be an innovative organization . . . and its core competencies provide it with the foundation to effectively counter (sic), if not thrive, against hybrid challengers (Hoffman, Conflict in the 21st Century, 9-10)

I am not sure that what Hoffman has to say is anything more than old wine in new bottles. IMHO his document is an effort to justify a unique mission for the USMC. It really adds little new to the discussion except to throw out another terminological framework for describing how and why people fight. I submit that the following two paragraphs summarize the point being made in essay rather succinctly.

People fight because they want something that others have. They fight because they cannot acquire what they want by other means. Were they able to develop the means to produce what they want, they would not need to fight for it. Were they able to talk others into giving them what they want, then they would not need to resort to force. Were they able to use economic means (barter or purchase) top get what they want, then they would not need to engage in violence. Since they cannot make, talk, or trade for what they want, they see no other option but to fight.
When one wants something badly enough, almost any means of attaining it is viewed as fair: the end justifies the means. If one has capabilities that greatly surpass the ability to resist by possessor of what one wants, then the only real limit on what one does links itself to the urgency of satisfying the perceived want. If one has limited capabilities, then the depth and urgency of the need may well drive one to do whatever is in one’s power to wrest what one wants a from its possessor.

[Bill Moore]

It is disappointing to see that the Marines are attempting to get a grasp on the type of war we're fighting now, while many in the Army are resorting to name calling in a weak attempt to isolate those with new ideas, or new spins on old ideas, but at least they realize the world is changing.

In the book "Army at Dawn" the author notes many Army officers didn't see the need for armor, and thought they could defeat German Armor with good ole fashioned calvary. While we're not that bad today, we're still reluctant to adapt.

Big wars are generally described as conventional armies versus conventional armies, where the focus is defeating the other's army, thus that nation's ability to wage war, while small wars are generally focused on controlling the population (stability operations, COIN, etc.). Small wars (or conflicts) can be fought in isolation (the banana wars, Somalia, El Salvador, etc.), and they frequently follow big wars (OIF, post WWII from the Philippines to Germany [very limited]). Although they may be played on the same field, they are different games with different goals, different strategies, different adversaries, different task organizations, etc. Failure to realize this leads to improper strategy based on the mind set that war is war, such as we saw in at the beginning of Vietnam and OIF where big army wanted to focus on search and destroy, and in both conflicts they came to the realization that a pacification strategy was required (clear and hold). In both conflicts the Marines came to that realization well before the Army. I'm glad to see that the Marines are exploring what future war will look like and adapting, the Army will eventually follow.

While COIN certainly isn't new, and 4GW has it weak points, it is foolish to state war is war, if that was the case then we would have got it right in OIF sooner. Technology (especially information technology), globalism, and an assortment of other structural and cultural changes influences what war will look like. Based on some of the comments on this thread, I can see we still have leaders who lead our men on a calvary (the real calvary, mounted on horses) charge against an armor unit, because nothing ever changes and war is war.

[Ken White]

So do the players.

Unfortunately, we don't get to choose what type(s) of war we'll be involved in and any attempt to concentrate on one spectrum or another would be quite foolish. The "only big war" folks are off base; the "COIN Divisions" proponents are off base. I think that most people realize we have to be a full spectrum force (and IMO that applies to all services) and hopefully, when the battles over roles and missions sort out, they will have succeeded.

It is disappointing to see that the Marines are attempting to get a grasp on the type of war we're fighting now, while many in the Army are resorting to name calling in a weak attempt to isolate those with new ideas, or new spins on old ideas, but at least they realize the world is changing.

A significant part the problem is the arcane and foolish way Congress plays money games. That system literally forces communities (for lack of a better term) to compete with each other on a playing field that's far from level. This leads to people espousing positions that they think will gain traction as opposed to laying out what's required and pursuing the proper goals. I'm not at all sure how we fix that...
. . .

While COIN certainly isn't new, and 4GW has it weak points, it is foolish to state war is war, if that was the case then we would have got it right in OIF sooner. Technology (especially information technology), globalism, and an assortment of other structural and cultural changes influences what war will look like. Based on some of the comments on this thread, I can see we still have leaders who lead our men on a calvary (the real calvary, mounted on horses) charge against an armor unit, because nothing ever changes and war is war.

I'm not a sports fan but to use that metaphor (this is for Marc T), look at last nights game. I suspect that many a Coach realized the way to defeat the Patriots was to shut Brady down. I'm sure they tried but either their plan wasn't good or their execution was flawed (regrettably, sometimes people just don't do their jobs very well...). The Giants Coach developed an effective plan to neutralize Brady and his guys executed it well. The result was an upset and a win.

That applies to fighting wars. Both the plan AND the execution have to be competent; a sluffing in either can ruin your day. The relative complexity and degree of integration of the world today in all aspects means that warfare is going to be more complex and that the separate types are going to blend -- we saw that in Viet Nam.

The North used all aspects of Hoffman's hybrid model, worldwide information operations, criminal activity -- many a kid got sucked into drugs and or the black market in country -- guerrilla techniques up to conventional attacks and every permutation in between. It was all there.

Yet, we ignored it. Surely we will not be that stupid again...

[Eden]

I found little enough to object to in Hoffman's characterization of Hybrid War. You can argue the history or dispute his use of Hamas as a model of the new hybrid army, but in general I think most of us - mastering our inbred distaste for new buzzwords - would agree he has generally got it right. Where Hoffman fails, as most military pundits do, is in the implications he draws from this supposed tectonic shift in the nature of warfare.

Hybrid warriors are extremely difficult to defeat; on the other hand, they rarely win. Hoffman and others confuse tactical excellence with operational or strategic coherence. Because they are handy with the rocket, the bomb, or the ambush, we assume they must be able to use their street-corner triumphs to achieve their desired ends. But this is unclear to me. I don't see how Al-Qaida in Iraq or the successors to the Taliban are 'winning', except in the most negative sense of not losing. If we are driven from Iraq with our tail between our legs, who exactly has 'won' there, and what is their prize? Does anyone think that our various hybrid foes bent on establishing the universal cailphate have the slightest chance of reaching their goal?

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?

So, instead of proposing that we reorganize the infantry battalion, or include more cultural training at Leavenworth, or incorporate human terrain teams with combat units, or foster greater inter-agency cooperation, if we truly want to get ahead of the bow-wave of future warfare, let's do the following: eliminate civilian control of the military (or, alternately, make politicians generals without all the fuss of military training; after all, our opponents do it, apparently with great success); transform the combatant commands into commercial-for-profit enterprises; subject all government employees to the UCMJ; and eliminate all distinctions between 'contractors' and 'soldiers'.

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.

Whew...I feel better.

[Rob Thornton]

Originally posted by Mike Innes:

Personally, I'm skeptical not of the uses of new labels and reconceptualization in general, but of overlabeling and relabeling the issues of now. A lot of the confusion and debate on what is and what isn't "new", I think, is gobbledygook longhand for "what we don't yet understand" and "insufficient historical hindsight to get a grip". In this case, though, I think Hoffman's work is worth considering; so's Bousquet's.

Here's the link to Bousquet's paper: www.bisa.ac.uk/2007/pps/bousquet.pdf

Mike - thanks for posting the link. I finally got around to reading it, and like most good things, it gets you to think - and think about things differently. Its one of those things that I think you can go back to more then once and get still something out of.
Best, Rob

[Mike Innes]

Mike - thanks for posting the link. I finally got around to reading it, and like most good things, it gets you to think - and think about things differently. Its one of those things that I think you can go back to more then once and get still something out of.
Best, Rob

De nada. That's what it did for me, too. Now that I've read a bit more of Hoffman, I'd have to argue that his and Bousquet's pieces complement each other quite nicely. To be read as a pair, in fact.

Bousquet's got another article-length piece in the most recent issue of the journal Cold War History, available here.