The Need for a Taxonomy of Hybrid Warfare: Population-Centric vs. Enemy-Centric Approaches

The article The Need for a Taxonomy of Hybrid Warfare: Population-Centric vs. Enemy-Centric Approaches by Dr. Tarik Solmaz, published by the Irregular Warfare Center, addresses the analytical challenges posed by the broad and often ambiguous concept of hybrid warfare. It proposes a refined classification to enhance understanding and strategic application in the national security realm.

“Given that hybrid warfare is an umbrella term encompassing a broad range of activities, creating a taxonomy to facilitate a more nuanced understanding of its diverse manifestations would be helpful. In this sense, this paper proposes applying David Kilcullen’s famous taxonomy, originally used in counterinsurgency, to differentiate between population-centric and enemy-centric approaches to the hybrid warfare model. Before that, however, let us briefly explain what Kilcullen means by population-centric and enemy-centric approaches within the context of counterinsurgency.”

Key Points:

• Analytical Challenges of Hybrid Warfare: The term ‘hybrid warfare’ encompasses a wide array of activities, from Russia’s operations in Crimea to China’s tactics against Taiwan, making it difficult to analyze and develop effective defense policies.
• Proposed Taxonomy: Drawing inspiration from David Kilcullen’s counterinsurgency frameworks, the article suggests categorizing hybrid warfare into two primary approaches:
  • Population-Centric Hybrid Warfare: This approach focuses on influencing the adversary’s population and decision-makers through intimidation and coercion, aiming to achieve strategic objectives with minimal direct confrontation.
  • Enemy-Centric Hybrid Warfare: This method involves higher levels of violence and military engagement. This targets the adversary’s armed forces directly while also employing psychological tactics to sway public opinion and political leaders.

Relevance to National Security Professionals:

For experts in the national security field, this nuanced taxonomy offers a clearer framework to identify and counter diverse hybrid threats. By distinguishing between population-centric and enemy-centric strategies, policymakers and military planners can tailor their responses more effectively. This ensures resources are allocated appropriately and strategies are aligned with the specific nature of the threat.

The article reveals illustrative examples. Dr. Solmaz examines China’s maneuvers concerning Taiwan and Russia’s actions in Donbas, which exemplify these distinct approaches. These cases can provide valuable insights into the practical applications of the proposed taxonomy.

This refined classification is crucial for developing robust defense policies and operational strategies. This proves especially useful in an era of increasingly sophisticated and multifaceted hybrid threats.

Read the full article here.