My belief about the whole "hybrid warfare" was that it was an attempt by COINistas to maintain their grip on power in Western national defense circles after the heydays of GWOT (2003-2008 for Iraq, 2001-2011 for Afghanistan, 2015-2018 for Syria). Gradually after 2016 the COINistas increasingly began to lose power and influence as the future threats are Russians and Chinese.
However the irregular warfare / special operations circles could extrapolate and invent new terms. Borrowing the whole "4th generation warfare" theory and slap new paints on (actually the original piece about "4th generation warfare" in 1990 did make more sense). If you've read Sean McFate's book on "the new war" (please don't), he basically says that US conventional advantage is some immovable object and the only thing that matters is "hybrid warfare". It does suit their institutional goals of maintaining relevancy.
The theory had some bizarre denominations over the years such as the worshipping of Soleimani and Gerasimov. One could write an entire treatise on all the worst excesses of the whole Hybrid Warfare era.
However there's also a political aspect of "hybrid warfare", western national leaders become increasingly weak and indecisive with regards to national security. Populace grew complacent and believed in the End of History (honestly I hate the 1990s because of the kind of delusional thinking that seemed to last forever). What "hybrid warfare" actually says was that the military and national security professionals should get greater say in media, economy and politics. The natural conclusion of which would be an IRGC-style deep state that would inevitably bankrupt the nation for their many petty goals.
Hybrid warfare ultimately is the fantasy where the defense of a state solely rests on its army and intelligence apparatuses. It takes the whole country, yet no politician is willing or able to do so.
Great article up until the end when you demand the continuation of the liberal International orders complete global dominance until the end of time. Normal stuff
Just curious. I like your mode of thinking and would be grateful if you could clarify one thing:
Judging from the international liberal democratic order point of view, what should be done with the (1) Israeli-Palestinian and (2) Taiwan conflicts?
It is always easy to use a Russian boogey to make this kind of arguments, but how about more controversial ones
(btw it is really funny to read about "The West consequently proved keen to make excuses for the Russians" as if the West hasn't been keen to excuse itself when doing literally the same international-order-breaking things. All countries are equal, but some countries are more equal than others, huh?)
My belief about the whole "hybrid warfare" was that it was an attempt by COINistas to maintain their grip on power in Western national defense circles after the heydays of GWOT (2003-2008 for Iraq, 2001-2011 for Afghanistan, 2015-2018 for Syria). Gradually after 2016 the COINistas increasingly began to lose power and influence as the future threats are Russians and Chinese.
However the irregular warfare / special operations circles could extrapolate and invent new terms. Borrowing the whole "4th generation warfare" theory and slap new paints on (actually the original piece about "4th generation warfare" in 1990 did make more sense). If you've read Sean McFate's book on "the new war" (please don't), he basically says that US conventional advantage is some immovable object and the only thing that matters is "hybrid warfare". It does suit their institutional goals of maintaining relevancy.
The theory had some bizarre denominations over the years such as the worshipping of Soleimani and Gerasimov. One could write an entire treatise on all the worst excesses of the whole Hybrid Warfare era.
However there's also a political aspect of "hybrid warfare", western national leaders become increasingly weak and indecisive with regards to national security. Populace grew complacent and believed in the End of History (honestly I hate the 1990s because of the kind of delusional thinking that seemed to last forever). What "hybrid warfare" actually says was that the military and national security professionals should get greater say in media, economy and politics. The natural conclusion of which would be an IRGC-style deep state that would inevitably bankrupt the nation for their many petty goals.
Hybrid warfare ultimately is the fantasy where the defense of a state solely rests on its army and intelligence apparatuses. It takes the whole country, yet no politician is willing or able to do so.
Well said
Great article up until the end when you demand the continuation of the liberal International orders complete global dominance until the end of time. Normal stuff
Just curious. I like your mode of thinking and would be grateful if you could clarify one thing:
Judging from the international liberal democratic order point of view, what should be done with the (1) Israeli-Palestinian and (2) Taiwan conflicts?
It is always easy to use a Russian boogey to make this kind of arguments, but how about more controversial ones
(btw it is really funny to read about "The West consequently proved keen to make excuses for the Russians" as if the West hasn't been keen to excuse itself when doing literally the same international-order-breaking things. All countries are equal, but some countries are more equal than others, huh?)
Interesting article, tough, thx