Hybrid warfare

Hybrid warfare is a military strategy which employs political warfare and blends conventional warfare, irregular warfare and cyberwarfare[1] with other influencing methods, such as fake news,[2] diplomacy, lawfare and foreign electoral intervention.[3][4] By combining kinetic operations with subversive efforts, the aggressor intends to avoid attribution or retribution.[5] Hybrid warfare can be used to describe the flexible and complex dynamics of the battlespace requiring a highly adaptable and resilient response.[4][6] There are a variety of terms used to refer to the hybrid war concept: hybrid war, hybrid threats, hybrid influencing or hybrid adversary (as well as non-linear war, non-traditional war or special war). US military bodies tend to speak in terms of a hybrid threat, while academic literature speaks of a hybrid warfare. For the purposes of this article, these terms will be used interchangeably.

Part of a series on
War

Definition
Every age has its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.

—Carl von Clausewitz[7]

There is no universally-accepted definition of hybrid warfare that leads to some debate whether the term is useful at all. Some argue that the term is too abstract and only the latest term to refer to irregular methods to counter a conventionally superior force. The abstractness of the term means that it is often used as a catch all term for all non-linear threats.[8][9][10]

Hybrid warfare is warfare with the following aspects:

  • A non-standard, complex, and fluid adversary. A hybrid adversary can be state or non-state. For example, in the Israel–Hezbollah War and the Syrian Civil War, the main adversaries are non-state entities within the state system. The non-state actors can act as proxies for countries but have independent agendas as well. For example, Iran is a sponsor of Hezbollah, but it was Hezbollah's, not Iran's, agenda that resulted in the kidnapping of Israeli troops that led to the Israel–Hezbollah War. On the other hand, Russian involvement in Ukraine can be described as a traditional state actor waging a hybrid war (in addition to using a local hybrid proxy) although Russia denies involvement in the Ukraine conflict.[9][10][11]
  • A hybrid adversary uses a combination of conventional and irregular methods. Methods and tactics include conventional capabilities, irregular tactics, irregular formations, diplomacy, politics, terrorist]] acts, indiscriminate violence, and criminal activity. A hybrid adversary also uses clandestine actions to avoid attribution or retribution. The methods are used simultaneously across the spectrum of conflict with a unified strategy. A current example is the Islamic State's transnational aspirations, blended tactics, structured formations, and cruel use of tterrorism as part of its arsenal.[8][9][11][12][13][14]
  • A hybrid adversary is flexible and adapts quickly. For example, the Islamic State's response to the US aerial bombing campaign was a quick reduction of the use of checkpoints, large convoys, and cellphones. Militants also dispersed among the civilian population. Civilian collateral damage from airstrikes can be used as an effective recruiting tool.[9][15]
  • A hybrid adversary uses advanced weapons systems and other disruptive technologies. Such weapons can be now bought at bargain prices.[16][17] Moreover, other novel technologies are being adapted to the battlefield such as cellular networks. In 2006, Hezbollah was armed with high-tech weaponry, such as precision guided missiles, which nation-states typically use. Hezbollah forces shot down Israeli helicopters, severely damaged a patrol boat with a cruise missile, and destroyed heavily armored tanks by firing guided missiles from hidden bunkers. It also used aerial drones to gather intelligence, communicated with encrypted cellphones, and watched Israeli troop movements with thermal night-vision equipment.[10][11]
  • Use of mass communication for propaganda. The growth of mass communication networks offers powerful propaganda and recruiting tools.[8][14] The use of fake news websites to spread false stories is an element of hybrid warfare.[18][19]
  • A hybrid war takes place on three distinct battlefields. They are the conventional battlefield, the indigenous population of the conflict zone, and the international community.[12][20]

Other definitions

The Chief of Staff of the US Army defined a hybrid threat in 2008 as an adversary that incorporates "diverse and dynamic combinations of conventional, irregular, terrorist and criminal capabilities."[9] The US Joint Forces Command defines a hybrid threat as "ny adversary that simultaneously and adaptively employs a tailored mix of conventional, irregular, terrorism and criminal means or activities in the operational battle space. Rather than a single entity, a hybrid threat or challenger may be a combination of state and nonstate actors."[9] The US Army defined a hybrid threat in 2011 as "the diverse and dynamic combination of regular forces, irregular forces, criminal elements, or a combination of these forces and elements all unified to achieve mutually benefiting effects."[9] NATO uses the term to describe "adversaries with the ability to simultaneously employ conventional and non-conventional means adaptively in pursuit of their objectives."[8] The former US Army Chief George W. Casey Jr. talked of a new type of war that would become increasingly common in the future: "A hybrid of irregular warfare and conventional warfare."[10] According to the 2017-inaugurated European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats, "[h]ybrid threats are methods and activities that are targeted towards vulnerabilities of the opponent" where the "range of methods and activities is wide."[21]

Effectiveness

Traditional militaries find it hard to respond to hybrid warfare. Collective defense organizations such as NATO might find it hard to agree on the source of the conflict, which makes a response difficult. An article published in Global Security Review, "What is Hybrid Warfare?," compares the notion of hybrid warfare to the Russian concept of "non-linear" warfare, which it defines as the deployment of "conventional and irregular military forces in conjunction with psychological, economic, political, and cyber assaults." The article partially attributes the difficulty to the "rigid" or static military taxonomy used by NATO to define the very concept of warfare.[22] Also, to counter a hybrid threat, hard power is often insufficient. Often, the conflict evolves under the radar, and even a "rapid" response turns out to be too late. Overwhelming force is an insufficient deterrent. Many traditional militaries lack the flexibility to shift tactics, priorities, and objectives constantly.[11][12]

History

The combination of conventional and irregular methods is not new and has been used throughout history. Some historians find the origins of the concept in the campaigns waged in ancient Hispania by the Lusitanian leader Viriathus or the renegade general Sertorius against the forces of the Roman Republic in the 2nd and 3rd centuries BCrespectively. Elements of hybrid warfare are also seen in the concept of la petite guerre, a sort of reconnaissance in force practiced by light troops in European armies in the 17th and the 18th centuries. A few examples of that type of combat are found in the American Revolutionary War (a combination of George Washington's Continental Army with militia forces) and the Napoleonic Wars (British regulars co-operated with Spanish guerrillas).[23] One can also find examples of hybrid warfare in smaller conflicts during the 19th century. For instance, between 1837 and 1840, Rafael Carrera, a Conservative peasant rebel leader in Guatemala, waged a successful military campaign against the Liberals and the federal government of Central America by using a strategy that combined classical guerrilla tactics with conventional operations. Carrera's hybrid approach to warfare gave him the edge over his numerically-superior and better-armed enemies.[24]

After 1945

The Vietnam War saw hybrid warfare tactics on both side, with the US using the CIA to support civil war parties in Laos and the Cambodian Civil War as well as ethnic groups inside Vietnam for its cause[25][26], and the Soviet Union supported the Viet Cong militia.

The Nicaraguan Revolution and the influence of the United States.

CIA in Mexican Dirty War

The First Congo War

After 1989

The end of the Cold War created a unipolar system with a preponderant American military power. Tough thT has tempered traditional conflicts, regional conflicts and threats that leverage the weaknesses of conventional military structure are becoming more frequent.[11][27]

At the same time, the sophistication and the lethality of non-state actors increased. They are well armed with technologically advanced weapons, which are now available at low prices. Similarly, commercial technologies such as cellphones and digital networks are adapted to the battlefield.[8][10] Another new element is the ability of non-state actors to persist within the modern system.[11]

2006 Israel–Hezbollah War

One of the most often quoted examples of a hybrid war is the 2006 conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a sophisticated non-state actor that is sponsored by Iran. While the group often acts as a proxy for Iran, it has its own agenda. It was Hezbollah's policy, rather than Iran's, that led to the kidnapping of Israeli troops, which was the impetus for the war.[11] The war featured about 3,000 Hezbollah fighters embedded in the local population attacked by about 30,000 Israeli regular troops.[10]

The group used decentralized cells composed of guerrillas and regular troops, armed with weaponry that nation states use, such as anti-tank missiles, rockets, armed unmanned aerial vehicles, and advanced improvised explosive devices.[28] Hezbollah cells downed Israeli helicopters, damaged Merkava IV tanks, communicated with encrypted cell phones, and monitored Israeli troops movements with night vision and thermal imaging devices. Iranian Quds Force operatives acted as mentors and suppliers of advanced systems.[10]

Hezbollah leveraged mass communication immediately distributing battlefield photos and videos dominating the perception battle throughout the conflict. Israel did not lose the war on the battlefield but lost the information battle, as the overwhelming perception then of Israeli defeat.[29]

2014 ISIL advance into Iraq

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is a non-state actor that uses hybrid tactics against the conventional Iraqi military. ISIL has transitional aspirations and uses irregular and regular tactics and terrorism.[8] In response, [Iraq]] turned to hybrid tactics itself by using non-state and international actors to counter the ISIL advance. The United States likewise was a hybrid participant and used a combination of traditional air power, advisers to Iraqi government troops, Kurdish peshmerga, sectarian militias; it also trained opposition forces within Syria. The hybrid war is a conflict with an interconnected group of state and non-state actors pursuing overlapping goals and a weak local state.[30]

Russian activities in the 2010s
Further information: Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present), Russo-Georgian War, Tajikistani Civil War, Transnistria War, Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Russia–European Union relations § Allegations of Russian intimidation and destabilisation of EU states, and Cyberwarfare by Russia

The Russian government's wide use in conflicts the Syrian Civil War and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, of private military contractors such as those of the Wagner Group was in 2018 singled out by experts as a key part of Russia's strategy of hybrid warfare to advance its interests and obfuscating its involvement and role.[31]

In respect of Russia, Jānis Bērziņš, the director of the Center for Security and Strategic Research, has widely published to argue that using the term "hybrid" to characterize the Russian strategy is misleading since Russia haa iys own definitions and concepts: "the word 'hybrid' is catchy since it can represent a mix of anything. However, its basic framework differs from the one developed by the Russians due to the former being a military concept and the result of American military thought. Moreover, the concept of New Generation Warfare includes conventional operations. In other words, Hybrid Warfare might be part of New Generation Warfare but cannot define it."[32] Michael Kofman, a senior research scientist at CNA and a fellow at the Wilson Center's Kennan Institute, noted in March 2018 that the West′s frequent references to hybrid warfare was in effect "an unintelligible Western reaction, after decades of wars of choice against paltry adversaries, to confrontation with another power that is capable across the full spectrum of conflict."[33]

Russia on US activities
See also: Cyberwarfare in the United States, United States intelligence operations abroad, United States involvement in regime change, and Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act

Moscow has accused Washington of conducting hybrid warfare against Russia during the colour revolutions. Its perception of being at war or in a permanent state of conflict with the US and its allies were furthered by the 2014 Maidan uprising in Ukraine. Russia's activities in the former Soviet states have been described as Hobbesian and redolent of Cold War thinking.[34]

Speaking at the Valdai Discussion Club in November 2014, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said:[35][36]

It is an interesting term, but I would apply it above all to the United States and its war strategy – it is truly a hybrid war aimed not so much at defeating the enemy militarily as at changing the regimes in the states that pursue a policy Washington does not like. It is using financial and economic pressure, information attacks, using others on the perimeter of a corresponding state as proxies and of course information and ideological pressure through externally financed non-governmental organisations. Is it not a hybrid process and not what we call war?

United States on Russian activities
See also: European migrant crisis

General Philip Breedlove, in a US Senate hearing February 2016, claimed that Russia is using refugees to weaken Europe and is directing the influx of refugee to destabilize areas and regions in terms of economy and to create social unrest. On 10 February 2016, Finnish Defence Minister Jussi Niinistö told a meeting of NATO Defence Ministers that Finland expects Russia to open a second front, with as many as 1 million migrants possibly arriving over the Finnish-Russian border. A similar statement was made by Ilkka Kanerva, Finland's former foreign minister and now the chairman of the country's parliamentary Defense Committee.[37]

Iranian activities in the 2010s
Further information: Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, Iran–Israel proxy conflict, Iran and state-sponsored terrorism, 2019 Persian Gulf crisis, and Cyberwarfare in Iran

Iran has been accused of conducting hybrid warfare.[38][39][40] According to the BBC, "Iran, along with its Houthi allies [in Yemen]], is conducting a classic war of the weak against the strong; a "'ybrid conflict' as it is known in the strategic textbooks. It is borrowing many of the tactics from the Russian play-book - the use of deniability; proxies; cyber-operations and information warfare."[41]

Iran on United States activities
See also: Iran–United States relations, Timber Sycamore, and United States sanctions against Iran

The United States has been accused of conducting hybrid warfare against Iran and other countries.[42]

Saudi and Emirati activities in the 2010s

Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates have been accused of conducting hybrid warfare against Qatar.[43]

Chinese activities in the 2010s
See also: Chinese cyberwarfare, Criticism of Confucius Institutes, and 50 Cent Party

China has been accused of conducting hybrid warfare against Taiwan and in the South China Sea.[44][45]

Pakistani activities in the 2010s
See also: Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts and India–Pakistan relations

Pakistan has been accused of conducting hybrid warfare against India.[46][47][48]

See also

References
  1. "Menacing Malware Shows the Dangers of Industrial System Sabotage".
  2. "It's the (Democracy-Poisoning) Golden Age of Free Speech". Wired.
  3. Standish, Reid (2018-01-18). "Inside a European Center to Combat Russia's Hybrid Warfare". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2018-01-31. [...] hybrid warfare: the blending of diplomacy, politics, media, cyberspace, and military force to destabilize and undermine an opponent’s government.
  4. "Defense lacks doctrine to guide it through cyberwarfare". nexgov.com. Archived from the original on 2012-03-03. Retrieved 2010-09-17.
  5. "Deterring hybrid warfare: a chance for NATO and the EU to work together?". NATO Review.
  6. "Auditors Find DoD Hasn't Defined Cyber Warfare". Information Week Government.
  7. von Clausewitz, Carl (1989). Howard, Michael; Paret, Peter (eds.). On War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. p. 593.
  8. Jasper, Scott; Moreland, Scott (2014-12-02). "The Islamic State is a Hybrid Threat: Why Does That Matter?". Small Wars Journal. Small Wars Foundation. Retrieved 2015-08-05.
  9. Fleming, Brian P. (2011-05-19). "Hybrid threat concept: contemporary war, military planning and the advent of unrestricted operational art" (pdf). United States Army Command and General Staff College. Archived from the original on 2015-08-05. Retrieved 2015-08-05.
  10. Grant, Greg (2008-05-01). "Hybrid Wars". Government Executive. National Journal Group. Archived from the original on 2015-08-05. Retrieved 2015-08-05.
  11. Deep, Alex (2015-03-02). "Hybrid War: Old Concept, New Techniques". Small Wars Journal. Small Wars Foundation. Retrieved 2015-08-05.
  12. Pindják, Peter (2014-11-18). "Deterring hybrid warfare: a chance for NATO and the EU to work together?". NATO Review. Archived from the original on 2015-08-05. Retrieved 2015-08-05.
  13. Hoffman, Frank (2007). Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid War. Arlington: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. p. 24.
  14. Standish, Reid (2018-01-18). "Inside a European Center to Combat Russia's Hybrid Warfare". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2018-01-22.
  15. El Mawy, Reda (2014-09-30). "Islamic State 'adapting to US-led air strikes'". BBC News. Archived from the original on 2015-08-05. Retrieved 2015-08-05.
  16. Whitney, Craig R. (December 2012). "Ruling Arms". World Policy Journal. Archived from the original on 28 December 2012. Retrieved 17 June 2016.
  17. Schroeder, Matt & Lamb, Guy (2006). "The Illicit Arms Trade in Africa" (PDF). African Analyst. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 February 2007. Retrieved 17 June 2016.
  18. Lucian Kim, Russia having success in hybrid war against Germany), Reuters (February 7, 2016).
  19. Sean Sullivan, A Joint Centre To Combat Hybrid Warfare Threats, F-Secure (November 24, 2016).
  20. McCuen, John J. "Hybrid Wars". Military Review. 88 (2): 107.
  21. "HYBRID THREATS – Hybrid CoE". Hybrid CoE. Retrieved 2018-01-31.
  22. Stowell, Joshua. "What is Hybrid Warfare?". Global Security Review. Retrieved 26 July 2018.
  23. Hoffman, Frank (2007). Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid War. Arlington: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. pp. 20–22.
  24. Visoni-Alonzo, G., The Carrera Revolt and "Hybrid Warfare" in Nineteenth Century Central America (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 2.
  25. Simo: Vietnam War - The New Aspect of Warfare, 23 July 2019, retrieved 28. November 2019
  26. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297699821_Hybrid_war_in_Vietnam
  27. SWJ Editors (2008-01-27). "Training a "Hybrid" Warrior at the Infantry Officer Course". Small Wars Journal. Small Wars Foundation. Retrieved 2015-08-05.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
  28. Hoffman, Frank (2007). Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid War. Arlington: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. pp. 35–38.
  29. Hoffman, Frank (2007). Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid War. Arlington: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. pp. 38–39.
  30. Schroefl, Joseph; Kaufman, Stuart. "Hybrid Actors, Tactical Variety: Rethinking Asymmetric and Hybrid War". Studies in Conflict and Terrorism. 37 (10): 863.
  31. Don't Be Fooled: Russia Attacked U.S. Troops in Syria: Mattis gave Putin "plausible deniability" for a military assault that went badly awry. Bloomberg, 16 February 2018.
  32. Berzins, J. (2019). "Not ‘Hybrid’ but New Generation Warfare". in Howard, G. and Czekaj, M. (Eds.) Russia's Military Strategy and Doctrine. Washington, DC: The Jamestown Foundation.
  33. Russia v the West: Is this a new Cold War? BBC, 1 April 2018.
  34. Thornton, Rod (4 September 2015). "The Changing Nature of Modern Warfare". The RUSI Journal. 160 (4): 40–48. doi:10.1080/03071847.2015.1079047.
  35. "REMARKS BY FOREIGN MINISTER SERGEY LAVROV AT THE XXII ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN AND DEFENCE POLICY". 2014-11-25. Retrieved 2017-02-02.
  36. Carden, James. "Russia and America's Dangerous Dance". The National Interest. Retrieved 19 February 2017.
  37. "E.U. Suspects Russian Agenda in Migrants' Shifting Arctic Route". New York Times. 2016-04-02. Retrieved 2016-04-02.
  38. "The Strategic Threat from Iranian Hybrid Warfare in the Gulf". Center for Strategic and International Studies. 13 June 2019.
  39. "The Iran crisis will show Russia and China the West still has no answer for 'hybrid warfare'". The Daily Telegraph. 13 July 2019.
  40. "Has Iran chosen hybrid warfare?". The Hill. 14 June 2019.
  41. "'Drone' attack on Saudis destabilises an already volatile region". BBC News. 16 September 2019.
  42. "The necessity of "effective reaction" against U.S. hybrid war". Tehran Times. 22 June 2019.
  43. "The current crisis in the Persian Gulf in the context of hybrid warfare". Australian Defence Force Journal. 2018.
  44. "China's Hybrid Warfare and Taiwan". The Diplomat. 13 January 2018.
  45. "Hybrid Warriors: China's Unmanned, Guerrilla-Style Warfare in Asia's Littorals". The Diplomat. 16 February 2017.
  46. "'Pakistan faces hybrid warfare' - Pakistan". Dawn. 9 March 2019.
  47. "Hybrid Warfare in Pakistan — I". Daily Times. 2 July 2019.
  48. "Deterrence, hybrid warfare and Pakistan". The Express Tribune. 18 May 2019.

Further reading
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.