p.16
Warfare against the regular forces of a sovereign state using orthodox means and methods can be called conventional or regular warfare, while warfare against predominantly irregular forces can be called irregular warfare.[5] The latter tends to be protracted, favors working through partners, and revolves around the support of the population rather than solely the defeat of enemy fighting forces. These clean distinctions will rarely exist in reality; however, as often in the past, future conflicts will appear as hybrids comprising diverse, dynamic, and simultaneous combinations of organizations, technologies, and techniques that defy categorization.[6]
Likely adversaries can be expected to pursue and adopt any methods and means that confer an advantage relative to U.S. military power -- including methods that violate widely accepted laws and conventions of war.[7] Even an advanced military power can be expected to adopt some methods considered “irregular” by Western standards, while nonstate actors increasingly are acquiring and employing “regular” military capabilities. Rather than attempting to defeat U.S. forces in decisive battle, even militarily significant states are likely to exploit increasingly inexpensive but lethal weapons in an erosion strategy aimed at weakening U.S. political resolve by inflicting mounting casualties over time.[8]
[5] quoted in full at start of post.
[6] Frank G. Hoffman, Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars (Arlington, VA: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, December 2007). “Hybrid threats incorporate a full range of different modes of warfare including conventional capabilities, irregular tactics and formations, terrorist acts including indiscriminate violence and coercion, and criminal disorder. Hybrid Wars can be conducted by both states and a variety of non-state actors.” [p. 8.]
[7] Including the popular term asymmetric warfare, defined as “armed conflict between belligerents having different strengths and weaknesses.” Wiktionary,
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/asymmetric_warfare [accessed 8 October 2008].
[8] In classical military theory, the term is strategy of attrition, which is contrasted with strategy of annihilation. See Hans Delbrück, History of the Art of War Within the Framework of Political History, trans. by Walter J. Renfroe, Jr. (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985), vol. 4, chap. IV.
Bookmarks