Hybrid Warfare (merged thread)

[Ken White]

And, yeah, it sure looks hybrid...
LINK

[jmm99]

after some thought, that the camo tutu is "kinda cute"; but that it just isn't me - damme.

More seriously, this seems astute:

goesh
I see a pattern change though that is distinct, mainly the quality of civilian input and direct involvement in military affairs in some very non-traditional ways, hence my previous qualifier of "almost moot"

The mix of civilian and military has raised and will raise some complex legal issues. I don't have a name for what we should call that area legally, but it goes beyond the traditional laws of armed conflict.

Getting down to the very basics, LOAC looks to:

1. Is there an armed conflict ?

2. What is the status of the conflicting "powers" (state or non-state) ?

3. What is the status of the individuals in the area of armed conflict (basically, regular combatant, irregular combatant and civilian) ?

So, what is the status of a soldier who is doing what is normally a civilian task ? And, what is the status of a civilian who is very much integrated into the military structure, but is performing what is normally a civilian task ?

It is one thing to have the Marine Corps and Peace Corps with a bright line separation between the two. But what happens legally when you mix them (a camo tutu in effect) ?

More questions than answers, I'm afraid.

[selil]

- it went 'hybrid' when the first Neanderthal man was dropped at 40' by a Cro-Magnon man using at atlatl. The Neanderthal crew saw him lying on the ground, his club and short, burnt-end wooden stabbing spear beside him and they ran like hell back to their cave and thus began the interplay of mind, matter and weaponry and it's been mutual adoption and adaptation ever since....

Having extensively used an Atlatl and being capable of drilling a thumb sized target at 50 meters with one. I would tell you if I was throwing, my spear at 40 feet it would go through the first neanderthal, the next, and likely the next.

The Atlatl is the artillery of early mankind.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

[goesh]

"The mix of civilian and military has raised and will raise some complex legal issues. I don't have a name for what we should call that area legally, but it goes beyond the traditional laws of armed conflict." JMM99

Well, the saving grace is military discipline, several hundred years of metered and measured response, sadly tempered with extreme sacrifice for it to ever get truly out of hand and civilians be dominating the show. I thought the lads were maybe getting soft, coming from my history of DIs being able to beat the living sh** out of boots and I wondered about high techery when a green towel around the neck in the bush in 'Nam was a wonderous thing to have but I've seen 'em and what they've done in two theatres of war and the complications of new legal burdens has not hindered our capability, commitment or professional standards and I ain't being a cheer leader here, its common observation. From Mai Lai to Abu Ghraib, discipline keeps the right and wrong decisions in check and balance and that is basis of any collective evolution. From a conventional or a COIN perspective, once US citizens are in harms way on foreign land in armed conflict, the judgement of Commanders and senior NCOs on the ground will still carry the most sway when the final verdicts come in, regardless of this new nuance of civlian input and impact.
Selil - any man that could spear 2 Neanderthals with one throw can wear a tu tu if he wants and I won't say a darn word about it, Ken might, but he is tougher than me.

[Ken White]

and take my thumb off before I can cock my SAA, I ain't messin' with. Not to mention I don't run, dodge and jump so well nowadays.

Or that with my luck, I'd be the second Neanderthal in line...

[Tukhachevskii]

In the thread “ Is Irregular Warfare Really "Irregular" Anymore?” William F Owen made the comment that “The important thing is the political objective of the operations, and how to achieve them. Ways and means, not who and where”. I’d like to respond to this here in connection with co-called “hybrid wars” (about which, I too, for what it’s worth, am sceptical if not down right incredulous). Owen states that the political objective of operations is of central importance in military operations (agreed) but that it is “ways and means” not “who and where” that should determine operational planning (disagree). Very often the ways and means is determined by who and where; we would not fight tribal insurgents in Aden the same way we fought Hitler. The end states we fought for, the enemy we were fighting and the operational environment all affected how we fought as much as why. Borrowing from Clausewitz I’d like to make the following observations about so-called hybrid wars following on from the above. According to Clausewitz strategy is something that is framed within the remarkable trinity of People-Government-Army corresponding roughly to Passion-Reason-Violence. The European, or Western, way of warfare as it has historically developed (and this includes the laws of war) relies on a sharp bifurcation between the inside of the trinity (the state) and the outside (the environment composed of other states). In Schmittian terms this corresponds to the definition of friend/enemy. Thus State A fights State B for whatever reason (of state/ raison d’etat); it’s Us against Them. This form of warfare, call it conventional if you will, is predicated upon the assumption of relatively coherent political entities which can distinguish themselves from other entities regardless of the actual political composition of the state in question (thus whether a state is Absolutist, Dictatorial, Democratic, etc is irrelevant). But what I see as a crucial development is that such cosy bifurcations are no longer possible (and this has strategic effects) when the distinction between Them and Us breaks down. For instance, and this is really my point, would our current strategy in Iraq or more pertinently Afghanistan be different if there weren’t large number of Muslims living in NATO countries who can and do affect the policy forming process either passively (through threats of violence) or actively (by supporting left-wing or other parties that espouse policies more favourable to Muslims or by creating “moral panics” among our electorates or even providing intelligence and material support to their co-religionists)? Is our strategy abroad being hamstrung or held hostage by the representatives of the people we are fighting (abroad) at home and who claim the same rights (without fulfilling either the duties or responsibilities underpinning them) as Us and who use these to engage in what Brooke Goldstein calls “lawfare”? As William F. Owen and other qualified observers have noted, what we call hybrid wars, Irregular Wars, etc. aren’t really new phenomena. The British Empire, Russian Empire, the United States in its (dare I say, Imperial phase) of continental expansion all fought “irregular”/”asymmetric”/”whatever” threats. However, these threats did not have constituencies which they could rally to their cause within the political system of their opponents thereby undermining what Carl Schmitt called the will formation of the state (i.e., the government and the people). These, let’s call them, polemically, “fifth columns”, can undermine two legs or two corners of the trinity, the government and the people, by shaping their opinion or, even attacking it (i.e, 7/7 in Britain or Madrid or even the attempt in Britain to shame our brave soldiers returning from war who discover that, actually, our enemies line our streets booing us “over here”). This, I posit, is the real “mess” of Hybrid wars given that our (NATO) states are democracies within which, procedurally at least, minorities can exert political pressure upon politicians whose strategic sense is a long as their nose and who really only care about domestic re-election. This, I would submit is the real, or at least a significant factor, in the new circumstances within which we have to fight not the supposed tactical or operational asymmetries between our forces and those of our opponents. That’s just my penny’s worth, political correctness be damned, but it’s something I’ve been mulling over for a while now.

[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!

[Tukhachevskii]

a.)
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!

Thanks for that, although I have an inkling (no more perhaps) that the onus of responsibility for ignorance lies entirely with me. I think, in a nutshell, the distinction I was tryingto make was between politics and war as its continuation. Hence ‘who and where’ approximates to the political requirements as set down by a political authority/government (i.e., “Grand Strategy”/foreign policy) whereas ‘ways and means’ refers to the strategic goals thus defined (i.e., how to effectuate the desired suasion/destruction of a given enemy). For example, Bush’s National Security Strategy of 2002 defined the “who and where” which the military sought to bring about by deciding how (‘ways and means’). (At least this is what I was taught at Uni; perhaps therein lies the rub).

This is what I think I was getting at; in that defining the ‘who and where’ as non-traditional/conventional (whatever) threats NSS served simply to steer the military on the path toward new ‘ways and means’ of engaging with “new” target sets (who and where). Hence the drivers of the obsession with RMA/NCW/EBO was not so much a military (ways and means) issue but a political one (‘who and where’). OTOH, is this essentially a question of doctrine (i.e, Theoria vs. Phronesis)? By that I mean is it a case that the theoretical (doctrinal) ‘ways and means’ of, say, NCW was really about institutional ‘pork barrel’ politics and the military trying to protect its interests as opposed to the practical ‘ways and means’ of getting the job done with the tools in hand which didn’t require new doctrine just the innovative use of existing systems (rather than the innovative justification of existing systems and the acquisition of even more exotic ones)?

When ‘who and where’ was defined as regime A or state B the ‘ways and means’ of bringing about national goals could be comfortably framed in a ‘conventional’ mindset. Once political authorities became obsessed with the idea that the 11th September 2001 was the harbinger of a new kind of warfare then the military followed suite with trying to reinvent the wheel of ‘ways and means’ by trying to adopt a ‘non-conventional mindset’ to what was essentially still a practical military issue of destroying a given enemy. Of course, if by ‘ways and means’ you mean that the goal of the military is to ‘find, fix, and kill’ the enemy by whatever means necessary/available then we are in ‘violent agreement’. I do believe that I have now confused myself (!).

Nonetheless, as I stated before I think the issue is not just one of semantics (of us deploying similar language to say different things) but rather of concepts which are mutually exclusive in their use because they mean different things (thus we are using different languages, or more properly, vocabularies). Hence my civilian take on things vs. your (experienced) military take on things; IMO this is also the problem between policymaking and strategy which is a circle yet to be squared (‘Bohemian Corporals’ present a different problem altogether).

That’s why SWJ/B/C is a great medium through which civilians like myself can greater acquaint themselves with what war is actually about rather than what the theory says it is. For me that means reading more threads before I dare to write what I think I want to say without actually knowing what it is I am thinking (case in point). Anyway, thanks for the constructive feedback, very much appreciated.

[Bill Moore]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100804018.html

N. Korea Swiftly Expanding Its Special Forces
Commandos Trained in Terror Tactics In Effort to Maintain Military Threat

IMO this article supports the importance of understanding the implications behind the concept of hybrid warfare, even if you think is is unneeded. Our foes are also learning organizations, and based on their observations of our techniques and tactics and Iraq, they are adapting to present a more complex threat, which in their assessment will neutralize some of our technological advantages. N. Korea potentially presents a large conventional threat, unconventional weapons, a large special operations capability to support their deep fight in S. Korea (and abroad), and now apparently a robust special operations/insurgent like capability to fight our forces in North Korea in the event we ever go to blows again.

By expanding what was already the world's largest special operations force, the North appears to be adding commando teeth to what, in essence, is a defensive military strategy. The cash-strapped government of Kim Jong Il, which struggles to maintain and buy fuel for its aging tanks and armor, has concluded it cannot win a conventional war, according to U.S. and South Korean military officials.

The havoc-raising potential of North Korea's special forces has grown as their numbers have increased and their training has shifted to terrorist tactics developed by insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Gen. Walter Sharp, commander of U.S. forces in Korea.

North Korea has also begun to question the utility of the tanks and armor it can afford at the front, after seeing the ease with which U.S. precision weapons shredded Saddam Hussein's armored forces in Iraq, according to a South Korean Defense Ministry report

.

"The North Koreans made a decision based on the resources they have," said Kwon Young-hae, a former director of South Korea's National Intelligence Service. "The best way for them to counterbalance the South's technological advantage is with special forces. When Kim Jong Il gives pep talks to these troops, he says, 'You are individually, one by one, like nuclear weapons.' "

[William F. Owen]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100804018.html

N. Korea Swiftly Expanding Its Special Forces
Commandos Trained in Terror Tactics In Effort to Maintain Military Threat

IMO this article supports the importance of understanding the implications behind the concept of hybrid warfare, even if you think is is unneeded.

OK, but NOTHING here is new. It's a re-stating of a 30-year-old fact bar the part that the NK are now less than convinced about their efficacy of their armour. Wow? Who saw that coming. This is someone playing with facts to fit the problem.

Wait for the next announcement that the Chinese are doing the same thing, and then the Russians. This really is the mountain of "So what."

Hyrbrid is a forcing mechanism, which relies on a basic falsehood, and massive gullibility on the part of the user.

[Bill Moore]

Wilf, we had this debate, and it is the war is war debate, or do we need terms like irregular and hybrid? Unfortunately, our Army and apparently the Israeli Army (2006) didn't respond well to these types of threats (and I agree they're old), so maybe articulating them will ensure we train for them. That is my underlying point for all of this. Once the full spectrum of threats are properly addressed in our training and education, then we can go back to the war is war statement and there will be no need for terms like irregular and hybrid.

[UrsaMaior]

OK, but NOTHING here is new. It's a re-stating of a 30-year-old fact bar the part that the NK are now less than convinced about their efficacy of their armour. Wow? Who saw that coming. This is someone playing with facts to fit the problem.

Wait for the next announcement that the Chinese are doing the same thing, and then the Russians. This really is the mountain of "So what."

Hyrbrid is a forcing mechanism, which relies on a basic falsehood, and massive gullibility on the part of the user.

Wilf
While being conservative in military matters is not only needed but also required, you cannot stop the wheel of time by simply closing you eyes. NK needs deterrence. They cannot do it with their missiles, with their nukes so they resort to IW. BTW IW was also the Yugoslav way of home defense having a territorial army which was to resort to guerilla war in case of an foreign (NATO/WP) attack. You are right that these methods are not new (kinda like you have to kill your enemy to stop it being a threat), but the system and the circumstances have significantly changed. Noone in the foreseeable future will have the industrial hinterland to match the US conventional strength (CVBGs, air regiments). So they HAVE to resort to IW. In turn in which NATO and other western forces have so to say mixed record. See China's White paper from 1996. You can find it in globalsecurity.org
And on the top of that there is the media which unlike the other state powers is neither controlled, nor limited by borders. A classic case for that is the demand by the USMC in Fallujah march 2004 to remove the Al-Jazeera reporters from the town as part of the ceasefire agreement.