"Counter-Irregular Warfare"
I participated in a TRADOC-run conference this week to discuss the Future Operating Environment (FOE); what it is, and the ramifications. Their work will work to inform the army senior leadership, just as the JOE (Joint Operating Environment and son of earlier army FOEs) informs the joint community; and Strategic Appreciation informs the SOF community. Good eclectic group of presenters and feisty breakout sessions. During the brief backs on the final day one of the groups had incorporated the term "counter-irregular warfare". No discussion, just a phrase buried in a slide; and I didn't participate in that breakout, so I don't know what led to it being used. But it works.
IW is a sound concept being promoted by talented and informed leaders (Sec Gates, ASD Vickers, and ADM Olson to name a few) for good and valid reasons. But it is as yet horribly named (you have to get your narrative right so that your principles, intent, actions and words all line up, and this "narrative" is considerably off azimuth in the minds of most of the larger interagency and within DoD for that matter. God know how it is perceived by those who live where we intend to bring it to "help" them...) and poorly defined (the current definition, viewed through a Clauswitzian lens, could define virtually all warfare).
Sage experts like Huba Was de Cega also are very concerned, and quick to point out, that this is a term that already has a widely accepted and negative meaning. Somali pirates conduct irregular warfare. Most insurgents conduct irregular warfare. We, as representatives of a State, and agents of her populace, operating under a legal mandate of legitimacy do not. I think the concept of "Counter-Irregular warfare" is one workable way to address the flaws in the current naming convention.
1. It doesn't throw the baby out with the bath.
2. It converts the current term to one that does not propose a state of continual, WOG warfare (which, no one wants). Just like COIN, CIW would be something done both in conflict and in peace (conflict prevention) and largely civil led and always civil enabled.
3. It does not paint us with a brush of illegitimacy by naming our conduct as "irregular." I think Huba would probably be able to get on board with CIW. I think our Ambassadors will have an easier job explaining why they would like to bring in US capabilities to a partner to work with their government to build capacities in the name of CIW far easier than under the name of IW. (Our SOF guys run into the same problems when we show up at an embassy and try to explain a proposal for some unconventional warfare named activity. Horrible narrative. "You want to overthrow the government???" asks the Ambassador. "No, no, no, just the opposite," explains the well intentioned operator. Then say "just the opposite" in the first place and avoid the confusion. SOF could profit from developing "Counter unconventional warfare" as a tool in our kitbag.
So, as the environment continues to change (become more irregular?), at an ever accelerating pace on the back of globalization driving technologies, we do need some new constructs to guide our future engagement and our current planning, organizing, and equipping to support those future engagements. Perhaps a couple of 'Counter-concepts" will help us get there.
Any thoughts on either Counter-IW or Counter-UW??
Bookmarks