Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 294

Thread: Hybrid Warfare (merged thread)

  1. #61
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default Two parallel threads ...

    I'm continuing this thread over here
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  2. #62
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Thanks for posting that also,

    Cav Guy. Read his book a long time ago; agreed with parts and not with others. I do strongly agree with this statement of his you quote:
    "the fact is that we have to establish a military and civilian establishment which can fight and win any war, on any battlefield, anywhere in the world. That will require dominant symmetric/conventional/nuclear capabilities and asymmetric/irregular/counterinsurgency capabilities.
    Anyone who agrees with me is bound to be thinking correctly...

    Or is that I agree with him so I must be thinking correctly...

    Either way, he's right.

    P.S.

    I have no hangup on hybrid war as a term; I just point out that as a practical effort, it's been around for years and thus is not 'new.' McCuen is correct, we have not dealt with it at all well and we need to be able to do that. No radical reforms are necessary, just common sense improvements -- and the civilian policy establishment is a big part of the problem.
    Last edited by Ken White; 03-04-2009 at 10:23 PM. Reason: Added P.S.

  3. #63
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default Violent Systems

    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

  4. #64
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    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
    Sapere Aude

  5. #65
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default Difficult for me to explain but...

    I know both Doug MacGregor and Frank Hoffman, extremely well and have immense respect for both men - and I don't give that out lightly

    Like most men I respect, I do not agree with all they say, but Doug hits the nail on the head with this one.

    The IDF has made close examination of Hoffman's work, but they have very different ideas, that do no equate to "Hybrid". For the IDF Gaza and Lebanon are State v State warfare the civilians to be protected are their own. The fact that the enemy does not posses armoured brigades is utterly irrelevant - as it should be. There is no "new war". War is war and all wars are basically the same.

    In my opinion "Hybrid" does serve a purpose if your Army/Services are intellectually incapable of grasping the nuance of the wider problem. It's the same justification as Manoeuvre Warfare.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  6. #66
    Council Member Starbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Sackets Harbor NY
    Posts
    59

    Default

    I think part of the problem you're running in to is that a lot of experts throw around the word "hybrid war" to describe a number of different phenomona. David Kilcullen uses it to refer to the complexities of fighting multiple insurgencies, criminal organizations and ethnic conflict in Iraq. Others seem to use it to refer to entities like Hezbollah, which didn't fight as conventional or unconventional. I think we may have fallen in love with a really cool buzzword.

  7. #67
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck View Post
    I think part of the problem you're running in to is that a lot of experts throw around the word "hybrid war" to describe a number of different phenomona. David Kilcullen uses it to refer to the complexities of fighting multiple insurgencies, criminal organizations and ethnic conflict in Iraq. Others seem to use it to refer to entities like Hezbollah, which didn't fight as conventional or unconventional. I think we may have fallen in love with a really cool buzzword.
    In the old days of Empire, what Kilcullen refers to were called "Hostiles" and were a well known and well understood phenomena.

    Hezbollah is no different from the NLF (VC) or the Boers. In fact they are exactly the same, just far less competent.

    All be seen before and explained in detail. We don't need words or explanations. We just need some common sense.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  8. #68
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    I need to read more on hybrid warfare, but at first glance it does not seem all that new. I've been reading Roman (Republic) history lately and it seems to me they would be quite familiar with the concept of "hybrid warfare" if not the terminology.

    Col.(ret) Macgregor said above:
    In addition, the IDF embraced the use of armor, artillery and fuel air explosive in the conduct of urban operations with the object of minimizing the exposure of dismounted IDF troops to enemy fire. While the Hamas enemy may qualify as one of Frank Hoffman's hybrids, the IDF wasted no time in fighting for hearts and minds because the IDF knows there are none to win in the Islamic World.
    He goes on to say that the IDF got it tactically and operationally right in the recent Hamas war. I agree with that to an extent, but Hamas' incompetence and mistakes, and the IDF's limited operational objectives (they didn't go "downtown" to root out hidden Hamas fighters/leadership) were factors as well.

  9. #69
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Surferbeetle View Post
    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
    Now that is what I call the PhD level of warfare. Especially chapter 3

  10. #70
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the article
    Whether there is any strategic payoff for Israel in this operation is another matter. But tactically and operationally, the IDF got it right.
    [/I]
    Is like a pilot saying, let's not worry about landings, lets learn from the pilot who does fantastic take offs and level flights.
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Sometimes it takes someone without deep experience to think creatively.

  11. #71
    Council Member Ron Humphrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,099

    Question Got to agree heartily with you on that one

    Quote Originally Posted by Rank amateur View Post
    Is like a pilot saying, let's not worry about landings, lets learn from the pilot who does fantastic take offs and level flights.
    Or cooking dinner with all the right ingredients and proper equipment but assuming 15 min at 800 will work rather than 60 at 200


    The issue that seems to continue to be left out of much of the discussion whenever IDF is involved is the fact that how they "war" is and will always be completely different than how we can "war" because they live their thus your talking about the difference between fighting for survival(them) and changing things for someone else(us).

    I've always agreed with WILF that war is war, Just seems like it needs to be stated that theres a big difference between -
    Your War and Someone elses battles
    Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours

    Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur

  12. #72
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default When the strategy is simply to continue to

    survive, doing things right tactically and operationally are pretty important -- one error can mean disaster.

    Which does not at all mean the Israelis did not profit strategically from the effort. Some times just demonstrating capability or will is a very important strategic effort (see Iraq, 2003-2009).

    I do agree that the Israelis offer few usable examples for us -- but in this case, there is one minor lesson -- that 'hybrid' war is manageable.
    Last edited by Ken White; 03-06-2009 at 10:22 PM. Reason: Typo

  13. #73
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    12

    Default

    This is all a mess...

    We have Jack McCuen telling us that Hybrid is new and a combination of Symmetric and Asymmetric war - seriously? Who fights a symmetric war? Two boxers, maybe? And Hoffman spreading the term around with wild abandon.

    I suggest:

    1. It's not new.

    2. The term would be useful if it prompted some of the dinosaurs / oil tankers (insert your own metaphor) to change course and if it galvanises the community - it isn't - it's being seized upon as a means to settle old scores (especially between the services...EBO anyone?), make reputations, but generally it is divisive.

    3. We're trying to walk before we can run...I still haven't seen a decent Irregular Warfare definition...I think that we need to get our house into order before we start developing new terms for old problems.

    I notice that the Israelis are pushing Hybrid real hard. Hezbollah's victory was a red herring - as this forum has stated, the Israelis got caught with their pants down. Ill prepared, not trained, and poorly equipped.

    And the Hamas thing...Israel lost (didn't win) against Hezbollah, so it loses its deterrence... best thing to do is to find someone real quick and give them a good hiding, just so the neighbourhood knows you're still in business.

    I think Hybrid's popularity stems from the fact that it is a useful fig leaf to cover someone's screw-up.

    LP

  14. #74
    Council Member Ron Humphrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,099

    Post Mess though it may be

    Quote Originally Posted by TheLapsedPacifist View Post
    This is all a mess...

    We have Jack McCuen telling us that Hybrid is new and a combination of Symmetric and Asymmetric war - seriously? Who fights a symmetric war? Two boxers, maybe? And Hoffman spreading the term around with wild abandon.

    I suggest:

    1. It's not new.

    2. The term would be useful if it prompted some of the dinosaurs / oil tankers (insert your own metaphor) to change course and if it galvanises the community - it isn't - it's being seized upon as a means to settle old scores (especially between the services...EBO anyone?), make reputations, but generally it is divisive.

    3. We're trying to walk before we can run...I still haven't seen a decent Irregular Warfare definition...I think that we need to get our house into order before we start developing new terms for old problems.

    I notice that the Israelis are pushing Hybrid real hard. Hezbollah's victory was a red herring - as this forum has stated, the Israelis got caught with their pants down. Ill prepared, not trained, and poorly equipped.

    And the Hamas thing...Israel lost (didn't win) against Hezbollah, so it loses its deterrence... best thing to do is to find someone real quick and give them a good hiding, just so the neighbourhood knows you're still in business.

    I think Hybrid's popularity stems from the fact that it is a useful fig leaf to cover someone's screw-up.

    LP
    it is unfortunately our mess because for all intensive purposes it does seem to drive where we go.

    As for Hezbollah, Hamas, or other's should it really be considered indicatory in the least of what a different player involved in the same conflict should expect?

    Do you suppose were it the ally's entering that there wouldn't be a massive difference in how they would fight. Or even if the Lebanese army where to go at it with them, are you sure it wouldn't be something more akin to Iraq or the Phillipine's, Farc, or (fill in the blank) I'm sure you get the point.

    Or how about if we had decided to have a go at Russia during the Georgian incursion last year. What might that have looked like? Anywho long way of saying I for one am still waiting on the definition of "regular" (war, warfare, battle, conflict, negotiation, barter, trade, etc) anything having to do with one party gaining or losing something to or from another.


    As to your concern with irregular warfare
    How's this for definition.

    Any conflict that occurs with the intent of achieving a given endstate, yet which is enacted through actions, teachings, or politics which do not conform to universally accepted norms for warfare.

    No good? Oh well had to try.
    Funny thing is seem's to me that once your able to accurately describe something in such a manner as to be encompassing of all actions to be found within it; it wouldn't be quite so irregular anymore

    In this particular case I don;t see a problem with the definition being used now. Perhaps the more important issue is how it is used and by whom toward what ends?
    Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours

    Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur

  15. #75
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    I don't think we need anymore new words in the war vocabulary as many have pointed out, however I bet this catches on. Our economy is a hybrid economy, part planned and part free market (supposedly anyway) this term was popular when I studied economies a long time ago but it fell out of fashion and the term now is "mixed economy". However it is about to make a comeback and bet Hybrid Warfare will come with it....we will see.

  16. #76
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheLapsedPacifist View Post
    I notice that the Israelis are pushing Hybrid real hard. Hezbollah's victory was a red herring - as this forum has stated, the Israelis got caught with their pants down. Ill prepared, not trained, and poorly equipped.
    Not true. As I stated in a previous post on this thread, the IDF is not enamoured with "Hybrid". I was at the IDF's Staff Collage, the day after Hoffman, so I am pretty well aware of their reaction and reservations. I don't know who you think here is pushing it, but they are not on my radar.

    In 2006 the IDF knew more about Hezbollah than any other organisation on the planet. The operational problems that did occur (and they did) had little or nothing to do with not understanding how Hezbollah worked.

    What the IDF are concerned with is something a bit more nuanced than "Hybrid," and they've been talking about it for the last 10 years
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  17. #77
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Megalopolis
    Posts
    83

    Default Seeking more light...

    Bob, your comments make a great deal of sense & I enjoyed reading them.

    Certainly the model will be whatever the Congress & DoD say, irrespective.

    Based on these things & your learned opinion, I have a question for you;

    What then is the difference between "attrition" & "manoeuvre" warfare.

    Pardon my ignorrance in asking, I thought I knew about five years ago.

    But, matters have become somewhat blurred for me in those regards.

    cheers.

  18. #78
    Council Member Polarbear1605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    176

    Default Instead of "The Scientific Way of Warfare"

    I will never recommend not to read a book but before you tackle "The Scientific Way of Warfare" you may want to read Colin Gray's ARTICLE "Irregular Warfare One Nature, Manay Characters". A Google search pops it up or the below link will get you there . Mr Gray can add a lot clarity to this discussion.
    http://www.ndu.edu/keystone/docUploa...20-%20gray.pdf

  19. #79
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default

    ...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.

  20. #80
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bullmoose Bailey View Post
    Bob, your comments make a great deal of sense & I enjoyed reading them.

    Certainly the model will be whatever the Congress & DoD say, irrespective.

    Based on these things & your learned opinion, I have a question for you;

    What then is the difference between "attrition" & "manoeuvre" warfare.

    Pardon my ignorrance in asking, I thought I knew about five years ago.

    But, matters have become somewhat blurred for me in those regards.

    cheers.
    Bullmoose,

    You may find a quite enlightening and spirited previous discussion here:
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

Similar Threads

  1. Wargaming Small Wars (merged thread)
    By Steve Blair in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 317
    Last Post: 02-21-2019, 12:14 PM
  2. The David Kilcullen Collection (merged thread)
    By Fabius Maximus in forum Doctrine & TTPs
    Replies: 451
    Last Post: 03-31-2016, 03:23 PM
  3. Gaza, Israel & Rockets (merged thread)
    By AdamG in forum Middle East
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 08-29-2014, 03:12 PM
  4. Are we still living in a Westphalian world?
    By manoftheworld in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-23-2014, 07:59 PM
  5. America Does Hybrid Warfare?
    By RedRaven in forum Military - Other
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 08-04-2009, 04:18 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •