Irregular warfare: any form of war that makes the Air Force feel like it's assets are not being properly utilized.
While I know that there is some practicality to achieving a definition (such as the world of DoD programs and concepts), I for one hope that Frank never has to pay off.
I would much rather have the continuing debate and the knowledge that it impels and creates, than a definition that eventually becomes something to memorize with little thought.
If I remember the DoD joint concept Venn diagrams, the Irregular concept is interlinked with the Stability and Reconstruction Concept and the Major Combat Operations Concept (or "Regular" concept). As Dan Kelly pointed out in an earlier Journal entry, providing the definition, especially as a method to bin subordinate concepts, drives a "this or that" mentality that really doesn't fit reality.
The desire for definitional specificity is great when tasking someone to "secure" or "sieze." I'm not sure we will task anyone to conduct irregular operations (at least I hope not). KISS is great, but for the multiple shades of what irregular warfare could be, if its simple, I suspect that its wrong.
So, I am looking forward to the discussion Frank is continuing and am happily not anticipating a winner.
Rank amatuer's comment expressing how the Air Force "feels" is highly relevant to this discussion and delves into the partisan, parochial politics of the Joint Staff that infects the DoD and hampers the efforts of the soldiers stuck in remote patrol bases in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Throughout the 1990's, the USAF, Air Commandos (JTACs, PJ's, and AFSOF) aside,portrayed themselves as the "main effort" of military operations. This mirage is exasperated by MG Dunlop's continued efforts to try to manipulate doctrine into AF dominance.
Don't get me wrong- I would not be typing this post today if it were not for a brave A-10 pilot running on empty to give me CAS in Nassiriyah back in 2003 or for the heroic F-15 and B-52 pilots supporting me through the trenches of Turki Village during the surge...But, in the end, they were SUPPORTING efforts, not the main efforts perceived in the Balkan Wars.
I love the AF in the same way the I love Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson. It's too bad that Simpson's chicken of the sea comment is akin to the AF's flying nuclear weapons over the continental US....
Opps, I did it again. I suppose that I'm on a roll tonight. Standing by those that differ.
I'm simply a grunt. Back to my hole.
v/r
Mike
Last edited by MikeF; 12-20-2008 at 02:05 AM.
In light of PhilR's comment that IW defies boundaries, is there anything wrong with declaring that IW is not a conventional fight between nation states or otherwise established fielded force on force? In that case, we have
- Regular warfare, which everyone who stared across the fields of Waterloo, trenches of the Seine, and Fulda Gap is comfortable with, and
- Irregular warfare, which is just about everything else from insurgency to cyberattacks (though these may at some point become "regular" in the future)
As far as partisan politics goes, MikeF, the Air Force is clearly trying to find its role in the "new" world of IW, particularly in an urban environment, but to think that ground forces will always be the SUPPORTED effort is to misunderstand the meaning of the term. Ground forces in the Balkans were initially constrained by political realities, so the Air forces had to be the main effort. True, you can't seize and hold territory from the air, but you can certainly force capitulation to a diplomatic resolution, which is in fact what happened.
To RankA, from what I observed, there are plenty of grunts who feel their "assets" are not being properly utilized as well. The fact is, IW requires all elements of national power, especially diplomatic, informational, and economic efforts, which unfortunately have not received the preeminence they deserve lately. "Nation building" is not what the Army was designed for, despite the skill of CA and CE troops, nor should they be expected to carry out these missions.
The ideal IW warrior is a multi-lingual cultural anthropologist with a good business sense and close air support.
SPOON
I'll take a shot.
IW= War waged by Sub-national Organizations.
...has broken into the bottle of scotch a bit early. No, this tangent doesn't have anything to do with defining IW (Britney Spears? PJ's portraying themselves as the "main effort?" Do you actually know any PJ's?). Furthermore, one wonders if you are aware of any irony at all in your rail against AF parochialism.
ginspace,
How you classify irregular forces and tactics in support of a nation state? For example, the Fedeyeen and the car and truck bombs used during the drive to Baghdad during OIF.
Many moons ago, we attended the same dive school. Now, in grad school, we're working through the same difficult issues. I consider Air Commandos (JTACs, PJ's, and AFSOC) in the same light as any other paratroopers, soldiers, marines, or operators.
My "tangent" on AF had nothing to do with AFSOF (that's why I specifically stated them "aside").
You simply misunderstood me.
Besides that, my "tangent" was specifically directed to discuss the wars we're actually fighting justapoxed with the financial battles and continuing dilemmas in Washington.
In light of this lightened debate, I was simply try to stoke the fires so that we could all learn something...I'm not merely as thick-headed as I perceive to be on this blog.
As ODB and CavGuy put it on another thread discussing SF v/s Conventional army, I'm simply sick of the infighting.
I simply want to win the game.
And yes, me like scotch.
v/r
Mike
Last edited by MikeF; 12-20-2008 at 03:17 AM.
UW1. UW-us helping dudes take down a bad government. Broken down into components.
Really like the simplicity but does it have to be a bad government and taking it down? Can UW not be from within ones own government? A power seizure by some within the government if not the government itself? Here's my reach: No direct engagement, expose any and all vulnerabilities and exert pressure onto those vulnerabilities in an attempt to show lack of control and creditability to the populace. One must think in asymmetrical terms. In truly simple terms: Brains not brawn.
IW
What we call it when we fight those conducting UW. Fighting dudes and dudettes who wear no uniform, are bound by no laws, and definately do not play fair.
ODB
Exchange with an Iraqi soldier during FID:
Why did you not clear your corner?
Because we are on a base and it is secure.
That would simply be dubbed "Change," but I like where you're headed.
v/r
Mike
Maybe the first thing we should ponder is whether we need to define IW in the first place. As the paper notes, the definition battle has been around for decades - that should tell us something. Maybe our efforts would be better spent on narrower, more easily defined terminology.
Fedayeen would be Regular warfare (since they're "uniformed troops") using asymmetric tactics, I guess.
It's really like trying to distinguish between strategic attack and interdiction...if the troops haven't started moving, it's the former, if they're moving to the front line it's the latter.
So if the Fedayeen are not acting as part of a national force on force, it's Irregular?
Hell, I don't know.
SPOON
Not that bad...
Mike F has a point also -- on the parochial bit -- not just dinging the Air Force; all the services, USSOCOM, branches within the Army, communities within the other services all get silly about stuff. It's wasteful and counterproductive. Really needs to stop...
However, and very seriously, as to Irregular Warfare.
My first point is that DoD paper is good to go for a first cut and doesn't need to be quarreled with before the ink is dry; that's pointless. Having said that:
Here's the problem as described by Hoffman:I'm surprised with all that ego you got as far as you did. When everyone is always right and everyone differs on comma placement, it's hard to agree. You don't ask those kinds of guys for a definition, especially not in a group. You convince them that your definition is correct and their idea. I am NOT being facetious -- nor, really, am I being disrespectful. FlagOs should be doing FlagO stuff and definitions are not FlagO stuff. If you ask them to get involved, they will (and you'll wish you had not), if you tell them their help is not required, most -- the good ones -- will accede."In over a year of effort, and two separate meetings of OSD's most senior officers; we failed to come up with a good solid definition for Irregular Warfare (IW). It’s like porn, we know IW when we see it." (emphasis added / kw)
Oh, and I don't drink scotch; thanks anyway.
Bookmarks