I think there is some utility in doing what Frank Hoffman has done - thinking about war is an endeavor to understand it - it gives us a basis to contemplate ideas and consider their implications. I'm not apt to get wrapped up in the term - he could have called it blended, mixed, etc vs. the term he chose - being blended. I think there is an interesting thing at work here though - "3 block war" had a linear feel to it - I never felt that was right, but neither could I come up with something I liked better to explain or discuss to others what was going on. "Hybrid" as a term may be closer to the mark - at least it starts to get at the idea of simultaneity.
More important is the thinking that goes on with explaining what he's getting at when he uses "hybrid" - the form in this case is just the wrapping for the function - which is to contemplate the nature of the wars we are seeing. While there may not be much new - again generals such as Slim, Wellington, Marion, Grant, Scipio Africanus, etc. have probably had to contend with some of the same types of conditions in their own campaigns and eras (I'd also add that they may have had to contend with some that we no longer have to, and possibly becuse of culture, technology, or other internal and external influences may not have had to contemplate some of those we now face) - however, we still have to do the nug work to consider how those things apply within the context of the conditions we see or anticipate to really appreciate what they mean.
There is also a question of the audience - not all the folks are going to have a very good frame of reference for understanding military operations - in fact they may never have served at all - however, they may be the ones making the policy choices which lead (or don't lead) to the use of military force to achieve a political objective. Its hard enough to get uniformed personnel to read complex theory or even good history on military affairs - let alone civilians. We sometimes must put things in writing in a manner that creates discussion, but can be digestible for both the professional and non- professional.
I plan on reading the full body tomorrow - I'm just too tired to do it tonight. What I'll try to do when I read it is what I've learned to do with all thoughts people have put down to be read - figure out what the author is trying to get across, and evaluate if I think he's right or wrong, why I think that, and what does it mean to me.
I've not met MR. Hoffman, but I've read a few things he's wrote, from what I've seen he's on a similar journey like many of us to better understand war, and benefit both himself, and what he believes in by doing so. We're not always going to come up with the right terms or definitions - and in some cases there might just not be any - the idea might just be too big to box, however, if you are going to have a discussion based largely on content - meaning through the written word - where animate, interactive discussion is hard or impossible - you have to get some kind of term or definition down - no matter how limited it may be - just to move the ball forward.
I'll comment more tomorrow after I've read it fully - after a good night's sleep.
Best, Rob
Bookmarks