Small Wars Journal

Making Sense of Irregular War

Sun, 04/23/2017 - 11:39am

Making Sense of Irregular War by Joe Brown, Over the Horizon

In this article, Joe Brown reminds us that most conflict does not involve state-on-state military confrontation. When it comes to multi-domain thinking, one must not only consider multi-domain actions in large-scale war, but also how to apply multi-domain solutions across the range of military options and effectively use all national instruments of power. Keep this in mind as the author helps us make sense of irregular warfare.

Irregular war is an abused and non-intuitive term. It has become a catch-all phrase for any type of conflict which departs from the type of army-on-army, set-piece battle about which the History Channel likes to make documentaries. The term is often conflated and used interchangeably with unconventional, revolutionary, asymmetric, guerrilla, insurgent, civil, hybrid, and even terroristic war. In its etymological formulation, it connotes war that is not normal, deviant, or rare. This connotation is inaccurate and misleading because most armed conflict since 1945 has been of the irregular variety. Irregular wars have also been regarded as a lesser set of conflicts, described using terms such as “small wars” and “brushfire wars.” The implication is that these wars are easier and preparation for “regular” war, i.e. state-on-state conflict, is more than sufficient. This attitude has decreased after the humbling US experiences in Vietnam and Iraq, but the term still muddies the issues. Why is there so much confusion about irregular warfare?

To disentangle the confusing mess of irregular war, we must address four questions:

  1. What do we mean by irregular war?
  2. What is the central problem?
  3. What is the fundamental solution?
  4. What can an external actor do about it?

As a guide to practical action, we must address each of these questions in turn…

Read on.

Comments

The author stakes his argument by declaring that irregular warfare in its various forms, is essentially an internal conflict, whether revolution against an existing government, or resistance against an invader. In that sense though, he run the risk of being obvious: *all* war is to achieve a political result favorable to the winner, whether "governance" or whatnot. That's broader and not connected to any "East vs West" transformation theory, and in fact, is not tied inexorably to internal conflict.

From our article above:

BEGIN QUOTE

The confusion about irregular war arises because, in modern war theorist Emile Simpson’s words, “wars and armed conflicts in general are typically classified in terms of their means, not their ends.” Terrorism, insurgency, and guerrilla attacks are all methods. Irregularity in terms of non-uniformed forces and indirect force application describe how the war is fought, not why. While this may seem like academic semantics, it is not. A strategist must never lose focus on ends. Strategy requires the rational linking of ends and means.

END QUOTE

Let us look at this from the perspective of the U.S./the West.

As to "ends," what the U.S./West seeks is to gain greater power, influence and control throughout the world; this, by (a) transforming outlying states and societies more along modern western political, economic, social and lines and by (b) incorporating these other states and societies more into the U.S./the West's sphere of influence..

Thus, whether the U.S./the West uses its military forces (and, indeed, any or all of its "instruments of power"):

a. In peacetime to achieve this objective.

b. As per a "large war" -- to defeat the "regular" forces of states and societies that are "resisting transformation". And/or uses its such forces

c. As per a "small war" -- to defeat the "irregular" forces of such "resisting transformation" states and societies;

In all such instance, the "ends" that the U.S./the West seeks remain the same.

So: Now let us, from this U.S./Western perspective, address the four question posed in the article above:

Q1. What do we mean by irregular war?

A1: A war in which the U.S./the West has had to confront a nation's irregular "resisting transformation" forces.

Q2: What is the central problem?

A2: "Universal western values" and "the overwhelming desire and appeal of our way of life," etc., has not, in fact, obtained in these outlying states, societies and/or regions. Thus, the governments and populations thereof, as a whole, or significant segments of same, either (a) will not comply with our such "westernization" project for them and/or (b) simply cannot make such a massive, fundamental and complete political, economic, social and value transition/transformation as the U.S./the West desires (at least not as per the U.S./the West's irrationally short time-frame goal.)

Q3: What is the fundamental solution?

A3: (a) Go big (bring in ungodly numbers of WOG forces and capabilities and plan to stay a very long time indeed), (b) scale back the degree of the transformation required and/or the lengthen the time one hopes to accomplish the transformation in; that, or (c) saddle up and go home.

Q4: What can an external actor do?

A4: Given that the "ends" that the "external actor" (the U.S./the West) seeks to achieve is, in fact, the "root cause" of the difficulties -- then the "external actor" (again, the U.S./the West in this instance) can:

a. Acknowledge and rational react to the "central problem" noted at "Q2" and "A2" above. And, thus,

b. Choose between the "fundamental solutions" addressed at "Q3" and "A3" above.

Bottom Line Thought:

Irregular war, thus, would not seem to be best understood as per an "instability"/"internal problem"/ "poor governance" construct.

Rather, irregular war -- much like regular war and indeed "peacetime" political warfare -- would best seem to be understood as per:

a. The "ends" that "external actor" seeks to achieve re: other states and societies and

b. The reason for, and the manner of, these other states and societies "resistance" to such -- unwanted (because it is often alien, profane and/or otherwise impossible/intolerable ) -- external actor "ends?"