Hybrid Warfare (merged thread)

[Tukhachevskii]

Also I should mention that what is happen at home (in the UK) at least qualifies as much as an insurgency as what is going on in Afghanistan (ndeed, they are interlinked). And that this is what, I at least, understand to be the real mess which one could describe as "Hybrid".

[Tukhachevskii]

What I’m saying in a nutshell is that insurgency isn’t just being fought over there but over here too. The home front is as much a battleground as the foreign AO.

[selil]

argh.. egad.. Tukhascevskii don't take this wrong but paragraph breaks... Pretty please?

[William F. Owen]

Also I should mention that what is happen at home (in the UK) at least qualifies as much as an insurgency as what is going on in Afghanistan (ndeed, they are interlinked). And that this is what, I at least, understand to be the real mess which one could describe as "Hybrid".

What I’m saying in a nutshell is that insurgency isn’t just being fought over there but over here too. The home front is as much a battleground as the foreign AO.

Well this pertains to my "ways and means" and not who and where. What insurgency is occurring within the UK?

[Tukhachevskii]

Well this pertains to my "ways and means" and not who and where. What insurgency is occurring within the UK?

I’m just going to do a stream of consciousness thing and see where it leads us (although I thought my original post was too all intents and purposes, for a blog at least, self-explanatory).

Firstly a working definition of insurgency, with which to begin answering your question (more for my benefit than yours), would probably go something like this, as per FM 3-24-2, “an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict [/B][/I]. The key distinction between an insurgency and other movements is the decision to use violence to achieve political goals. An insurgency is typically an internal struggle within a state, not between states. It is normally a protracted political and military struggle designed to weaken the existing government’s power, control, and legitimacy, while increasing the insurgency’s power, control, and legitimacy”. Though I have issues with this I'll leave it as a heuristic steering mechansim for what (I think) I want to say.

More directly I do believe that Muslim communities constituting ‘parallel societies’ are engaged in an insurgency within their host societies. The mass of Muslims, passive though they may be (taking a backseat for the moment), provide the more politically active members of their community with an ample base from which to draw support (there are few Muslims, IMO, who would refuse mobilisation, in whatever form, once that call has been invoked with explicit reference to the Quran, the Hadith or the Shari’ a). Furthermore, the religion itself is incompatible with Western Democracies as Islam defines itself as a complete political system (this is not an invention of Qutb but is traceable to Mohammed) not merely a system of religious belief (I for one am apt to define communities as they themselves understand themselves rather than how we would like to them to understand themselves/behave). Loyalty for a Muslim is to his/her Ummah first (normatively speaking), everything else comes second.

The idea of Islam’s supremacy over any and all other political systems is “hardwired” into the Islamic mentalité. After all if you want to know what makes an Islamist you only have to look at Islam (as the COG). What is a “Radical” Muslim if not someone who has taken the Quran it its word (or Muhammad for that matter). Islam, after all, means “submit!” (it is the verbal imperative form of the root verb “he submitted”, sa-la-ma). Any system of belief that has as its title, to say nothing of its contents, the command to submit (or what? one asks?) is suspect in my eyes. Perhaps I’m prejudiced but then there’s a lot to be said for prejudice pace Burke:

"Prejudice is of ready application in the emergency; it previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue, and does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of decision, sceptical, puzzled and unresolved. Prejudice renders a man’s virtue his habit; and duty becomes a part of his nature‟ .

As for insurgent acts; Muslims born in Britain have been found fighting their supposed compatriots (the British Armed forces) in Afghanistan; the failed Glasgow airport suicide attack; the 7/7 attacks ; the establishment of Shari ‘a courts and the declaration of the Muslim Council, now the supposed Muslim Parliament, that Shari’ a law supervenes UK constitutional law (i.e, that Muslims are beyond and even above the law of the UK) and thus directly threatens the legitimacy of parliament and constitutional democracy as the sole representative mechanism for the UK, etc. We could quibble over the distinction between the above as acts of terrorism, insurgency or political activism but I’d rather see them as forming a continuum rather than as distinct activities per se. Very often insurgencies abroad (one thinks of Afghanistan and Pakistan here but also in the wider ME) are appealing to a support base in the West drawn from their own communities who can, if activated, become proxies in the rear areas of their host states (sort of like Soviet Partisans). And let’s not forget the funding, equipping and even training of insurgents (whether that be at “paint-balling events” or hiking) undertaken or provided by Islamic charities (which see the case of the Holy Land Foundation and its relationship to CAIR in the US at the NEFA website).

Interestingly over at the blog-them-out-of-the-stone-age-blog the site founder (whose name currently escapes me) claims that the civil rights movement spearheaded by Martin Luther King qualifies as an insurgency, counter-intuitive yes, but I believe there’s a grain of truth in there and similar thinking/reasoning can be made for what’s happening here in Blighty.

[davidbfpo]

(Taken from above)

As for insurgent acts; Muslims born in Britain have been found fighting their supposed compatriots (the British Armed forces) in Afghanistan; the failed Glasgow airport suicide attack; the 7/7 attacks ; the establishment of Sharia courts and the declaration of the Muslim Council, now the supposed Muslim Parliament, that Sharia law supervenes UK constitutional law (i.e, that Muslims are beyond and even above the law of the UK) and thus directly threatens the legitimacy of parliament and constitutional democracy as the sole representative mechanism for the UK, etc. We could quibble over the distinction between the above as acts of terrorism, insurgency or political activism but I’d rather see them as forming a continuum rather than as distinct activities per se. Very often insurgencies abroad (one thinks of Afghanistan and Pakistan here but also in the wider ME) are appealing to a support base in the West drawn from their own communities who can, if activated, become proxies in the rear areas of their host states (sort of like Soviet Partisans). And let’s not forget the funding, equipping and even training of insurgents (whether that be at “paint-balling events” or hiking) undertaken or provided by Islamic charities (which see the case of the Holy Land Foundation and its relationship to CAIR in the US at the NEFA website).

A lot here, so an indication only why I find this viewpoint inaccurate. No-one to my knowledge has ever identified a UK citizen fighting in Afghanistan; yes, a recent report on an Aston Villa tattoed body and reports of UK accents overheard on the radio. Sharia courts have been running for years, for very limited cases, usually family disputes; similar to the courts used by the Jewish community. Sharia law is above UK constiutional law; no, not heard that one before - from a reliable commentator.

Best of all

directly threatens the legitimacy of parliament and constitutional democracy as the sole representative mechanism for the UK, etc

. Sharia law, a Muslim minority and acts of terrorism pale in comparison to the parliamentary expenses scandal - which has removed much of parliament's legitimacy.

Then there's

And let’s not forget the funding, equipping and even training of insurgents (whether that be at “paint-balling events” or hiking) undertaken or provided by Islamic charities..

. Please cite some evidence that Islamic charities in the UK have been engaged in this activity. Such a role is quietly alleged, rarely IIRC with any prosecutions, although bank accounts have been frozen - LIFG I recall. I know one such charity which actually gets UK taxpayer support for it's work and raised 2m UK pounds during the Gaza episode.

davidbfpo

[William F. Owen]

An insurgency is typically an internal struggle within a state, not between states.

Again the ways and means, not who and where. North Vietnam, conducted an insurgency in South Vietnam, to replace the existing government. The PLO had similar ambitions. Insurgency is merely a tool, by which policy is "set forth". It isn't the policy itself, except that the qualifying end state is always the replacement of a government over a people or state.

[Tukhachevskii]

(Taken from above)

Sharia law is above UK constiutional law; no, not heard that one before - from a reliable commentator.

Best of all . Sharia law, a Muslim minority and acts of terrorism pale in comparison to the parliamentary expenses scandal - which has removed much of parliament's legitimacy.

Then there's . Please cite some evidence that Islamic charities in the UK have been engaged in this activity. Such a role is quietly alleged, rarely IIRC with any prosecutions, although bank accounts have been frozen - LIFG I recall. I know one such charity which actually gets UK taxpayer support for it's work and raised 2m UK pounds during the Gaza episode.

davidbfpo

Again the ways and means, not who and where. North Vietnam, conducted an insurgency in South Vietnam, to replace the existing government. The PLO had similar ambitions. Insurgency is merely a tool, by which policy is "set forth". It isn't the policy itself, except that the qualifying end state is always the replacement of a government over a people or state.

To say that something is far from reality is really only making a statement about one’s position relative to the reality being observed/perceived. I am sure we could both refer to “un-named confidential” sources who could back up our respective versions of reality. The difference would be, I suppose, that your position is akin to the higher ground (from the top down) while mine would be from the bottom up. I have, on many occasions, met individuals belonging to numerous Islamic groups, including the Muslim Council/Parliament, who have told me almost verbatim what I stated in my post regarding Shari ‘a law (indeed, one merely needs to read the Muslim Council’s founding manifesto back in 1990 for proof of their position, if you pm me I can send this to you).

Lenin once said that it was the task of Communists to tell the West’s useful idiots what they wanted to hear (dissimulation) and it’s the same with our ‘government approved’ out-reach/community affairs/minority leaders. I have often been told virtually the same thing by “certain reliable people”; as I am blessed/cursed with a permanent tan (no sun bed induced melanoma for me!) getting into events and passing myself off as ‘one of the bunch’ is probably a lot easier for me than for most people, as is soliciting information. Nonetheless I don’t think I can find anything like the kind of evidence you’re looking for, giving the difficulty of “profiling” possible terrorists and the like by government agencies ( as you say allegations but no prosecutions; but is that down to politics or law?) I don’t really have a chance, so I suppose that we are just going to have to disagree with one another and hope that time proves me wrong (and I sincerely hope it does). Although given that the money that goes to Gaza inevitably winds up in the pockets of less savoury characters is irrelevant I suppose (from various “sources”).

OTOH, I think it disingenuous to compare ministers abusing a perfectly legitimate system of monetary recompense which is then picked up by the media and turned into a circus event with the kind of thing I was talking about. I doubt that these same ministers are doing what they are doing to subvert parliament and replace it with a caliphate. But as you and I are on different wavelengths regarding the reality of that proposition, again, I suppose there’s nothing more I can say. I don’t mean to disparage what you are saying, I respect you and your greater experience and wisdom, but I just don’t agree (I suppose it might be a case of auctoritas non veritas facet legem as Hobbes would have said). When all is said and done I consider the threat from Islam to be an existential danger no different in terms of its magnitude, if not of greater magnitude, than Communism and Nazism (what Charles Maurras once described as ‘the Islam of the North’) and prefer to err on the side of extreme vigilance.

With respect to William F. Owen and the difference between ‘ways and means’ and ‘who and where’ I think given my civilian background I have to admit ignorance of the, essentially, military distinctions being made (or perhaps it’s a case of “essentially contested” concepts which are mutually exclusive?). Hopefully, in future, and having read up more of the threads, I shall be able to reply intelligently (although I doubt I shall ever have anywhere near the experience necessary to back up my claims). But I think in that sense I really have to bow to better qualified and experienced heads and wait a while longer and know what I am talking about before posting (really let enthusiasm, or is that hubris, get the better of me!). Apologies all round.

[William F. Owen]

With respect to William F. Owen and the difference between ‘ways and means’ and ‘who and where’ I think given my civilian background I have to admit ignorance of the, essentially, military distinctions being made (or perhaps it’s a case of “essentially contested” concepts which are mutually exclusive?). Hopefully, in future, and having read up more of the threads, I shall be able to reply intelligently (although I doubt I shall ever have anywhere near the experience necessary to back up my claims). But I think in that sense I really have to bow to better qualified and experienced heads and wait a while longer and know what I am talking about before posting (really let enthusiasm, or is that hubris, get the better of me!). Apologies all round.

a.) Call me Wilf - quicker to write.

b.) My hubris may well have caused me to be less than adequate with my elucidation of Ways and means versus Who and where.
The distinction I am attempting to make is that a useful description of warfare should account for what is attempting to be done, and how, versus purely technical description of the environment. Perhaps not usefully and perhaps I should think it through a bit more!