An IW “Bottle of Scotch” Challenge

[MikeF]

Originally posted in the SWJ Blog by Frank Hoffman.
All in all - the beginnings of a good debate. Yes, we need a definition better than what we have. Yes, concur with the point about populations (very COIN centric). But out of a dozen or so definitions that exist in the foreign literature, and the six or so developed by OSD, Army, Booze Allen etc, this is not an improvement. Sorry about that – so it’s back to the white board. I will put up a bottle of scotch to the best definition.

KISS- Keep it simple stupid. I'll drink to that!!!

1. UW-us helping dudes take down a bad government. Broken down into components.

- 1a. Contact me on SIPR.
- 1b. Contact me on SIPR.

2. IW- us helping a friendly government stop dudes from taking them down. Broken down into components.

- 2a. SFA- We give them big guns, ships, and planes to help smack the dudes, and we teach them how to use the toys.

- 2b. FID- We send a small SF team or MTT team to combat advise.

- 2c. Partnership (co-located)-Army unit (the current majority of US forces in Iraq/Afghanistan)- we live with them and help them stop the bad dudes.

- 2d. Partnership (not co-located)- Army units (Iraq 2003-2006) live in their land and stop by once a week to tell them how bad they suck at stopping the bad dudes.

- 2e. Training exercises- Army units embark on temporary duty to jump outta airplanes or drive tanks with our brothers, high five, and encourage them to stop the bad dudes. Army unit leaves with foreign jump wings or gives up stetsons.

Who's next?

v/r

Mike

[Rank amateur]

Irregular warfare: any form of war that makes the Air Force feel like it's assets are not being properly utilized.

[Entropy]

Irregular warfare: any form of war that makes the Air Force feel like it's assets are not being properly utilized.

Thanks for the valuable contribution to the discussion.

[PhilR]

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.

[MikeF]

Thanks for the valuable contribution to the discussion.

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

[ginspace]

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.

[slapout9]

I'll take a shot.
IW= War waged by Sub-national Organizations.

[Entropy]

...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.

[Ken White]

Thanks for the valuable contribution to the discussion.

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:

"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)

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.

Oh, and I don't drink scotch; thanks anyway.

[MikeF]

...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?

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

[ODB]

1. UW-us helping dudes take down a bad government. Broken down into components.

UW
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.

[MikeF]

That would simply be dubbed "Change," but I like where you're headed.

v/r

Mike

[Entropy]

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.

[slapout9]

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.

Now your talking. That is/was one of the chief benefits of Systems Thinking they apply to any system or situation...lethal or non-lethal.

[MikeF]

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.

Enthropy,

I totally agree with you on this one. In the SWJ blog, I used a football analogy. I've fought throught regular and irregular conflicts (no unconventional as of yet), and I really think it's as simply as tackle/ block and pass/run.

I was trying to make this thread a comical version of KISS in terms that we understand while explaining very difficult topics.

Somewhere in the Bible, it says there is a time for war and a time for peace...

I suppose that will be the case until the end of days.

To me, warfare is the same- it sucks, people die, and sh@t happens.

Regardless, it's gonna happen.

v/r

Mike

[ginspace]

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.

[ODB]

How can one not look at what is happening today within our own government and not see it as a hostile take over or UW if you please, only thing missing is the action arm, oh that's right 20,000 troops dedicated to NORTHCOM!!!! Sorry not to get political on here, just thinking it can be looked at as a form of UW. Which then really blurs the lines. Outta box kinda guy here, sorrry.

[Bill Moore]

The definition is good enough to generate discussion on where we have gaps, but it is far from ideal, just as our definitions of unconventional warfare are far from ideal. Does it need to have a perfect definition, or is an idea or generalized concept enough?

Part of the definition addresses the actors who are non-state, and another part of the definition addresses the focus of the strategy which is a specific population.

Conventional/regular warfare is generally thought of as conventional military forces fighting other conventional military forces, so the actor is the nation state and their conventional military forces and the objective is the enemy's capability to wage conventional war.

I think we all know that war is much more complex than that, and that IW and regular warfare elements will almost always be blended.

This is a tough one, but I do like Scotch, so I may give it a try later.

[Stevely]

IW is one of those things like pornography - can't tell you what it is, but you know it when you see it.

[Tom Odom]

Anyone who has been on an operational stint in the 3rd world knows full well what it means to be irregular

Scotch--when you can get it--is often a great cure (or at least reduces related anxieties. Single malt 25 years or more is best.

Tom