Ok, I just read the article "Irregular Warfare is Warfare" in the latest Joint Forces Quarterly. It is a very accurate statement of what the current rationale and thinking is within DoD.

I believe it is based upon unsubstantiated positions and flawed analysis, and take an opposite viewpoint. I believe that Irregular Warfare is not irregular, or warfare.

I said above that we needed to look at the task and the purpose for this concept we are wrestling with, and start fresh with naming and defining it. In the course of doing that I looked at various related missions, from Security Assistance, to that of US AID, to the Department of State. None of those really captured it. The closest I found is how DoD supports Civil Authorities here at home for emergencies. So my proposal is to simply expand the mission of "Military Support to Civil Authorities" laid out in DODD 3025.15, and expand it to include support for foreign policy as well. So, in that vein:

Current Term: Irregular Warfare

Current Definition: “A violent struggle among state and non-state actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant populations. IW favors indirect and asymmetric approaches, though it may employ the full range of military and other capabilities, in order to erode an adversary’s power, influence, and will.”

Proposed:

Task: Coordinate US Government activities to implement foreign policy in peace

Purpose: To ensure efficient and effective implementation of all elements of national power under a lead appropriate to the mission at hand in order to support U.S. national interests abroad.

Term: Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA)

Definition: (Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA). Those activities and
measures taken by the DoD Components to foster mutual assistance and support between the Department of Defense and any civil government agency in planning or preparedness for, or in the application of resources for response to, the implementation of foreign policy, the consequences of civil emergencies or attacks, including national security emergencies.


Obviously what DoD did, and how it did it would be completely determined by the situation at hand and what the civil lead wanted to accomplish. One additional benefit of this approach is that there is already an extremely effective and well established protocal for when and how military support is incorporated, and more importantly, how it is concluded. Last in, first out. Civil lead, bottom up approach to crisis management.