I'm not a fan of hybrid warfare, because like many I have long recognized it has a norm of warfare throughout the ages, BUT we all recall more than one senior officer during OIF saying "no one told me about this threat". If nothing else it provides a cool buzz phrase (the U.S. military can't function without cool buzz phrases) describing the full spectrum of threats during warfare. It shouldn't be required, but it is, because the U.S. military is still attempting to break free from the Fulda Gap paradigm of warfare. We have come a long ways, but not far enough that we won't be bounce back into it if allowed. It will take a new generation of leaders, probably the ones who are relatively junior field grades now. Of course by then the nature of the threat will have changed and all our soldiers will be well versed in foreign languages and how to fix sewage systems, and yet once again ill prepared for the next threat. What we really need to invest in is a better crystal ball .Legally, one might speak in terms of "hybrid warfare"; that is warfare involving state and non-state actors; or warfare involving regular combatants and irregular combatants; or warfare involving the political struggle and the military struggle (common to all warfare, except perhaps the ultimate state of "absolute war" in CvC's theoretical sense). However, using that term in any particular context is meaningless unless the context is particularly defined. In which case, you probably do not need the term.
Bookmarks