Hybrid warfare is a military strategy which employs political warfare and blends conventional warfare, irregular warfare and cyberwarfare with other influencing methods, such as fake news, diplomacy, lawfare and foreign electoral intervention. By combining kinetic operations with subversive efforts, the aggressor intends to avoid attribution or retribution. Hybrid warfare can be used to describe the flexible and complex dynamics of the battlespace requiring a highly adaptable and resilient response. 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.
Definition
Every age has its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.
—Carl von Clausewitz
There is no universally accepted definition of hybrid warfare which
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.
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. These 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). Note that Russia denies involvement in the Ukraine conflict.
- 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. These 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 terror as part of their arsenal.
- A hybrid adversary is flexible and adapts quickly. For example, the Islamic State's response to the U.S. aerial bombing campaign was to quickly reduce the use of checkpoints, large convoys, and cell phones. IS militants also dispersed among the civilian population. Civilian collateral damage from airstrikes can be used as an effective recruiting tool.
- A hybrid adversary uses advanced weapons systems and other disruptive technologies. These weapons can be now bought at bargain prices. 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, that 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. The organization also used aerial drones to gather intelligence, communicated with encrypted cell phones and watched Israeli troop movements with thermal night-vision equipment.
- Use of mass communication for propaganda. The growth of mass communication networks offers powerful propaganda and recruiting tools. The use of fake news websites to spread false stories is an element of hybrid warfare.
- A hybrid war takes place on three distinct battlefields. the conventional battlefield, the indigenous population of the conflict zone, and the international community.
Other definitions
The U.S. Army Chief of Staff
defined a hybrid threat in 2008 as an adversary that incorporates
"diverse and dynamic combinations of conventional, irregular, terrorist
and criminal capabilities". The United States Joint Forces Command
defines a hybrid threat as, “any 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". The U.S. 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". NATO
uses the term to describe "adversaries with the ability to
simultaneously employ conventional and non-conventional means adaptively
in pursuit of their objectives". Former U.S. Army Chief Gen. George W. Casey
talked of a new type of war that would become increasingly common in
the future: "A hybrid of irregular warfare and conventional warfare." 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."
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 making response difficult. An article published in Global Security Review entitled "What is Hybrid Warfare?,"
compares the notion of hybrid warfare to the Russian concept of
"non-linear" warfare. It defines non-linear warfare as the deployment of
"conventional and irregular military forces in conjunction with
psychological, economic, political, and cyber assaults." The article
partially attributes this difficulty to the "rigid" or static military
taxonomy used by NATO to define the very concept of warfare. 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 on a constant
basis.
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
B.C. respectively. 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 during the 17th and 18th
centuries. A few examples of this type of combat are found in the American Revolution (a combination of Washington's Continental Army with militia forces) and Napoleonic Wars (British regulars cooperated with Spanish guerrillas).
One can also find examples of hybrid warfare in smaller conflicts
during the nineteenth 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 utilizing 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.
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 their cause, while the USSR supported the Vietcong militia.
The Nicaraguan Revolution and the influence of the USA.
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, and though this has tempered traditional conflicts,
regional conflicts and threats that leverage the weaknesses of
conventional military structure are becoming more frequent.
At the same time sophistication and lethality of non-state actors
increased. These actors are well armed with technologically advanced
weapons that are now available at low prices. Similarly, commercial
technologies such as cell phones and digital networks are adapted to the
battlefield. Another new element is the ability of non-state actors to persist within the modern system.
2006 Israel–Hezbollah War
One of the most often quoted examples of a hybrid war is the 2006 conflict between Israel and the Hezbollah. The Hezbollah is a sophisticated non-state actor sponsored by Iran.
While the group often acts as a proxy for Iran, it has its own agenda.
It was Hezbollah policy, rather than Iran's, that led to the kidnapping
of Israeli troops that was the impetus for the war.
The war featured about 3,000 Hezbollah fighters embedded in the local
population attacked by about 30,000 Israeli regular troops.
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. 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.
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 at the
time was of Israeli defeat.
2014 ISIL advance into Iraq
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
(ISIL) is a non-state actor utilizing hybrid tactics against the
conventional Iraqi military. ISIL has transitional aspirations, and uses
irregular and regular tactics and terrorism. In response, the state of Iraq itself turned to hybrid tactics utilizing non-state and international actors to counter the ISIL advance. The United States likewise is a hybrid participant through a combination of traditional air power, advisers to Iraqi government troops, Kurdish peshmerga, and sectarian militias, and training opposition forces within Syria.
The Iraq–Syria hybrid war is a conflict with an interconnected group of
state and non-state actors pursuing overlapping goals and a weak local
state.
Russian activities in the 2010s
The Russian government's wide use in conflicts such as in Syria and in 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 her interests, while obfuscating her
involvement and role.
In respect of Russia, Jānis Bērziņš, director of the Center for
Security and Strategic Research, has widely published arguing that using
the term Hybrid to characterize the Russian strategy is misleading,
since the Russian have their own definitions and concepts. Accordingly,
to him, "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." 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".
Russia on US activities
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 former Soviet states have been described as Hobbesian and redolent of Cold War thinking.
Speaking at the Valdai Discussion Club in November 2014, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said:
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
General Philip Breedlove, in a US Senate hearing February 2016, claimed that Russia is using refugees
to weaken Europe, directing the influx of refugees in the continent 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, where as many as 1 million migrants may arrive
over the Finnish/Russian border. A similar statement was made by Ilkka Kanerva, Finland's former foreign minister and now chairman of the country's parliamentary Defense Committee.
Iranian activities in the 2010s
Iran has been accused of conducting hybrid warfare. According to BBC,
"Iran, along with its Houthi allies [in Yemen]], is conducting a
classic war of the weak against the strong; a "hybrid 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."
Iran on United States activities
The United States has been accused of conducting hybrid warfare against Iran and other countries.
