WILF and I will agree 100% that the current grasping at new terminology to describe old things is not helpful.
We will differ as to the importance of "size" as a defining criteria. From my studies, it is understanding the nature of the competitor and his purpose for action that sheds the best light as to how to most effectively deal with him.
Wars waged by states against states for political purpose can be large or small. Similarly, wars waged by populaces against states for political purposes can be large or small.
A State, however, has very different risks, vulnerabilites, strengths, etc than a populace-based organization that must be addressed very differntly (and both fine tuned by the details of the situation at hand.
So ask yourself, are your dealing with a state, or a populace as the first, and most important branch in your quest for understanding.
I also contend that the one thing truly unique today is the rate and availability of information. This does not change the nature of war, but is does require one to reassess the TTPs that were developed for dealing with populace based wars prior to the 1980s. I believe it was this modern information age that actually brought down the Soviets (sure the West's containment efforts and the Soviet's own weak economy and mistakes contributed), but when it all began to quickly unravel, it was the people across eastern europe empowered and informed that made it happen. This was just the bowwave of similar popular uprising in the Middle East and Africa today.
One significant differnce is that Gorbachav made the conscious decision not to counter these popular uprisings. The West, faced with a similar loss of control over populaces of the Middle East chose a differnt route... So the Soviet puppets were tumbled, the Western puppets still sit; pretty fascinating stuff actually.
Bookmarks