First, have I arrived at this debate a YEAR late...your post are all 2008?!

I've finished recently a paper on IW...can't release it yet but I'm presenting it soon. Having spent some time thinking about it - like the rest of you - may I offer:

The thing here is, I believe, that IW is a confusion of two issues...

- The first is UrsaMaior's point of Irregular Forces...

- The second is TROUFION's point of Irregular Actions.


Some definitions on which I build my analysis:
a. Definition: Regular forces belong to a nation state or some legally recognised entity (say UN).

b. Definition: Irregular forces don't!

c. For brevity I won't define Regular and Irregular Actions here, but I do in my paper.

My paper sets out that IW is related to the combinations of these...so the crux of my analysis is...

1. Regular Forces fighting Regularly (conventional state on state)...

2. Irregular Forces fighting Regularly (Hezbollah 06, Balkans militias)...

3. Regular Forces fighting Irregularly (I suggest SOF UW)...and

4. Irregular Forces fighting Irregularly (Insurgents)

The issue is then what is IW? 2..3..4 or some combination of two or all three? I argue for a specific combination, but I feel that the building blocks of a robust definition can be found above...

If any of you are at a particular meeting next week discussing this, perhaps we can chat over a beer?

LP