Apologies for getting this a bit out of order, and with all due respect, but this:

To whit, you asked,
Many smart people are saying that in the future America's enemies will use "hybrid warfare." Is there anyone thinking/writing about how America could use "hybrid warfare" against it's enemies?
So your question is basically would the US fight it's enemies in the same way that the Viet Cong, The PLO, Hezbollah, Hamas or the LTTE guerillas fought? There were/are Guerilla and Irregular Forces. If that's your question, why use the word "Hybrid?" Why do any of us use this word?p
Makes me want to run with this more than I probably should.

Those were not my words; the original poster was a Council Member named RedRaven who asked that question. I’m not sure how much of your last response is predicated on the erroneous believe that two different posters were the same and thus my comments about military writing are directly implying what was said in the original post about “hybrid warfare”.

So with that grain of salt...

If you read the professional journals of the time, - and I have - you'll see the Brits talking about the bones of Deep Battle in 1917!
I don't dispute that the bones of deep warfare (or tanks, paratroopers, etc) were out there and in writing, but you have no idea how they were received. What's to say that those published "bones" weren't dismissed just as you are dismissing contemporary writings?

If anything, that the Soviets - not the Brits - get most of the credit for advancing deep battle and putting it into practice by the late 20s should speak volumes.

If you can physically kill in cyberspace, then it is a battlefield, and if you are telling me that IP based data comms have military application, then I agree, but the Internet is not a battlefield, unless folks die. Words matter. In military writing "Battle Field" has a precise meaning. Please do not invent new ones for it.
In that there isn’t an operation definition for “battlefield” (only Area of Operation and Area of Interest), I sought out the military writing precise meaning that you alluded to. Everything I ran came across defined a battlefield as a place where a battle took place. So the real question is how do you define battle? None of the ones I found include “folks die” as a component of a battle. The one definition that I was referenced to repeatedly is from Trevor Dupuy - “a conceptual component in the hierarchy of combat in warfare between two or more armed forces, wherein each group will seek to defeat the others within the scope of a military campaign, and are well defined in duration, area and force commitment”.

Using that definition, the internet would qualify. Obviously you have to make an argument for it, but it’s in there. While the argument for making “folks die” over the internet is a thin string, the ability to defeat an enemy over the internet could be defined in real terms.