Results 1 to 20 of 294

Thread: Hybrid Warfare (merged thread)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Hey Slap,

    EXACTLY!!! that is why I say this Balderdash that Strategy is Ends,Ways and Means will get us killed if we don't change it. Enemies are People. This why I say Strategy is best understood as Motives, Methods and Opportunities.
    I diagree - but only because I thnk it depends on interpretation of Ends, Ways and Means. It means something different depending on who you talk to and what their concerns are. I think motives, methods and opportunities is also useful - particularly at understanding the proximate type causes - but can be constraining if you are looking for long term causes that have morphed from their orignal impetus or relation - but the effect remains the same. It gets back to the linear, deterministic sense of history vs. the non-linear, contingent one.

    Both (ends/ways/means & motive/method/opportunity) I think have their place - neither should exclude the other.

    Best, Rob
    Last edited by Rob Thornton; 02-03-2008 at 05:52 PM.

  2. #2
    Council Member sullygoarmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Fort Stewart
    Posts
    224

    Default

    This is certain the "flavor of the week". We just read a monograph called "Square Pegs in Round Holes" by the Australian Land Warfare Study Center where the authors expound on their theory of "Complex Irregular Warfare (CIW)". According to the authors,

    "the proponent will adopt some ora ll of the four tenets of traditional irregular wafare but wll also exploit contemporary society to further their ends. An adversary is likely to take advantage of globalization and use technology to attack or cripple a state."

    Most people will agree that the majority of potential enemies do not want to fight the U.S. conventional on coventional force. That being said, it makes perfect sense that hybrid war or CIW harnesses the strengths of the attackers while maintaining the flexibility to exploit limited conventional means for offensive action. I do not think this is earth-shattering to anyone...while the methods of warfare always evolve, the nature does not. From Sun Tzu to P4, no one disputes understanding the background, the nature, the goals, and the culture of an enemy is important to develop an effective national strategy translated by the Operational level commander down to the tactical executors.

    That being said, certain elements and leaders of the U.S. army were too slow to realize things had changed. Whether wedded to their traditional branch outlook, reliving the glory days of the cold war, or just refusing to see the changing methods of the enemy, these writers of "hybrid/CIW" are serving a useful function: they stimulate debate in the professional military communities. Whether you buy their theory or think its just another way to make some $$$ by publishing these articles, people ARE talking about it, having discussions, some heated, and walking away thinking about the problem. If anything, these think-pieces emphasize the necessity to frame a problem before we jump into planning. By taking the time to frame a problem before rushing into making the powerpoint slide or pulling up an old templated NSS or tactical order from time past, our planners and leaders have a better chance of gaining a much more in-depth understanding of the obstacles ahead.
    "But the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet withstanding, go out to meet it."

    -Thucydides

  3. #3
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
    Hey Slap,



    I diagree - but only because I thnk it depends on interpretation of Ends, Ways and Means. It means something different depending on who you talk to and what their concerns are. I think motives, methods and opportunities is also useful - particularly at understanding the proximate type causes - but can be constraining if you are looking for long term causes that have morphed from their orignal impetus or relation - but the effect remains the same. It gets back to the linear, deterministic sense of history vs. the non-linear, contingent one.

    Both (ends/ways/means & motive/method/opportunity) I think have their place - neither should exclude the other.

    Best, Rob

    Hi Rob, I could probabaly live with that except for the fact that people cause crimes and wars based upon their motives. So to me any theory of war that makes any sense must hold that understanding the motive is the most fundemental and important of all, from that everything else will flow.

Similar Threads

  1. Wargaming Small Wars (merged thread)
    By Steve Blair in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 317
    Last Post: 02-21-2019, 12:14 PM
  2. The David Kilcullen Collection (merged thread)
    By Fabius Maximus in forum Doctrine & TTPs
    Replies: 451
    Last Post: 03-31-2016, 03:23 PM
  3. Gaza, Israel & Rockets (merged thread)
    By AdamG in forum Middle East
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 08-29-2014, 03:12 PM
  4. Are we still living in a Westphalian world?
    By manoftheworld in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-23-2014, 07:59 PM
  5. America Does Hybrid Warfare?
    By RedRaven in forum Military - Other
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 08-04-2009, 04:18 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •