Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
Somali pirates conduct irregular warfare.
No they do not. They are criminals. They have no interest in gaining any political power other than that which helps them conduct piracy.
The RUF in Sierra Leone, were criminals sometimes masquerading as insurgents, and sometimes actually having to be insurgent in that they were aiming to take and hold ground to exploit carbon resources. In the end they screwed up by becoming a political threat, and thus attracted an international military response.
If the Somali pirates seek to hold ground of over throw local government for the exercising of policy rather than criminality, then they'll be conducting warfare. Piracy is a land based problem, so they may have to hold ground, but no political aim, no warfare.

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.
Why is it sound? How does this help? Why do you want binary code all the possible threats on the planet into two boxes? What good does it do you?

(the current definition, viewed through a Clauswitzian lens, could define virtually all warfare).
Correctomundo! It does. Why is it so important to define warfare in a way different to that which Clausewitz, did, when it has served military thought so well?

You have one army, with one set of equipment, and limited time and budget to train. Within that it has to able to fight every type of armed force on the planet. Who, where and why is irrelevant to answering the exam question.

The British Army answered this question in 1961, when they said there would be enemies with tactical nuclear weapons, conventional capability, and some very limited capability. They all had to be dealt with using the equipment and weapons in the stores, and the range of training available. Over the next 22 years, that proved generally correct.