Everything You Know About Counterinsurgency History Is (possibly) Wrong!

[Bob's World]

Consistent with Gumz' concern about not pigeonholing conflicts.....

"Looking at irregular warfare as being one kind of conflict and conventional warfare as a discreet kind of warfare is an outdated concept," said Defense Secretary Robert Gates. "Conflict in the future will slide up and down a scale, both in scope and in lethality."

Might a Hoffman-esque Hybrid framework be replacing the "IW" brand?

All war is, and always has been "hybrid" under the definitions proposed by Mr. Hoffman and his ilk. Simiarly we have always needed to be prepared to deal with a wide range of conflicts that fall across a broad range of lethality as indicated by Secretary Gates.

To me, the only form of war that could be described as "hybrid" is a true Civil War; as it combines aspects of State vs State conflict with aspects of Populace vs State Conflict. These two types of war while similar on their face or to the rifleman in the frontlines; are extremely different in their strategic construct. Understanding these differences helps shape effective policies, strategies, campagin plans, operations, tactics, etc for a true success.

To say that state actors will also employ para-military elements, or enlist the support of other states, tribes, clubs or individuals who they think might help their cause is as old as warfare itself.

This goes to an earlier position I have made on here. We conducted Cold War operations (VERY irregular in the history of man) for so long we came to see that model as the norm, or "regular": We have been struggling to name everything since as some type of "irregular", be it 4GW, hybrid, Global insurgency, etc. i.e. "current warfare is only irregular if the Cold War was 'regular'"

I understand exactly what Secretary Gates means when he makes statements like that; but I also disagree with the line of logic that the "experts" have been handing him. It shouldn't bug me, but it does.