For Want of a Nail, the Kingdom was Lost: The Struggle to Understand Irregular Warfare

For Want of a Nail, the Kingdom was Lost: The Struggle to Understand Irregular Warfare is by Robert C. Jones and is published by Inter Populum: The Journal of Irregular Warfare and Special Operations.

“Look deep into Nature, and you will understand everything better.” —Albert Einstein

Here is the abstract:

We have a new definition of irregular warfare, and to paraphrase Winston Churchill, we are “perhaps, at the end of the beginning.” Now, the real work begins—improving how we think about the many diverse challenges and activities encompassed within irregular warfare (IW). Ultimately, IW is a manmade, largely administrative construct created by the Department of Defense (DoD) for the DoD. Within IW, however, resides a diverse collection of naturally occurring human dynamics. These cannot be defined to suit our biases; rather, we must strive to understand them for what they are. At some point, we must ask: Are our manmade constructs and their definitions the problem? Or are we more hindered by our flawed understanding of the nature of the challenges we face and the growing limitations of state power to control them? This article argues that the latter is the greater issue—but both must be addressed.

From Robert C. Jones:

One of the goals of this article is to clarify the role of IW as an organizing framework and highlight the critical importance of understanding, as clearly as possible, the fundamental nature of insurgency. This article is built around a proposed critical distinction between the nature of a problem and its character. One way to think about this distinction is that the nature of a problem encompasses everything that it must be—and nothing that it need not be. In 1905, Albert Einstein disrupted the world of physical nature by publishing works based on “thought experiments” rather than physical ones.[2] In thought experiments, he used his imagination to visualize how the variables in nature interacted with the constants to devise new theories to explain the challenges of our physical world. Here, we apply the same logic to human nature. If the constants of a problem constitute its nature, then the variables of the same problem provide its character. The doctrine and literature of the challenges associated with IW are heavily premised on the character, as historically, the application of overwhelming state power could typically shape the character of a situation into one deemed acceptable by the state. However, as the modern information age shifts relative power from states to populations, these character-based approaches are proving too difficult, costly, provocative, and fleeting. By first determining the distinct nature of a problem, we can better imagine how the variables of character might interact and then develop more accurate theories for understanding the myriad human dynamics within the family of challenges we call “irregular warfare.”

Small Wars Journal’s Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Jan Gleiman, had this to say on Linkedin about this piece:

Honored to see this important piece by Robert Jones published in ASU’s peer-reviewed publication Inter Populum: The Journal of Irregular Warfare and Special Operations.

Bob is adding a great deal to the discourse on irregular warfare. Lots of great quotes, but this line stood out.

“The best safeguard against institutional, emotional, and situational bias is a clear understanding of the distinct and fundamental nature of various types of challenges. There is no substitute for getting the problem right from the outset. Why? Because standing in the emotional wake of events like 9/11, January 6, or October 7 is not the time to craft unbiased understanding or develop measured, effective responses given the outrageous character of what has occurred.”