DOCSLIB.ORG

The Theory of Unconventional Warfare Win, Lose, and Draw

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Theory of Unconventional Warfare Win, Lose, and Draw View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Calhoun, Institutional Archive of the Naval Postgraduate School Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 2008-12 The theory of unconventional warfare win, lose, and draw DeFeyter, Bruce E. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/3858 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS THE THEORY OF UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE: WIN, LOSE, AND DRAW by William “Dave” Driver Bruce E. DeFeyter December 2008 Thesis Advisor: Gordon McCormick Second Reader: George Lober Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED December 2008 Master’s Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE The Theory of Unconventional Warfare: Win, Lose, 5. FUNDING NUMBERS and Draw 6. AUTHOR(S) MAJ William “Dave” Driver and CW3 Bruce E. DeFeyter 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Naval Postgraduate School REPORT NUMBER Monterey, CA 93943-5000 9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING N/A AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. 12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words) Clausewitz states that “The defensive form of warfare is intrinsically stronger than the offense” and to defeat ‘the stronger form of warfare’ “an army’s best weapon is superior numbers.” Given these two facts, how do special operations forces defeat numerically superior forces fighting in the defense? William H. McRaven’s book, Spec Ops, lays out a theory of special operations and six principles that are “applicable across the spectrum of special operations” (McRaven, 1995, p. 3). McRaven’s thesis postulates that numerically inferior forces can obtain Relative Superiority for short duration through the use of the six principles of special operations. McRaven’s thesis is focused on the direct component of special operations. The theory, arguably, does not cover the full range of special operations; specifically it fails to address the indirect component of special operations, Unconventional Warfare. Given that the defense is the superior form of warfare and numbers count, the question emerges, how can a sponsored insurgent organization or resistance movement defeat the state, which begins with an opening advantage of vastly superior numbers and already in the defense posture? The answer may be found in the flip side of McRaven’s Theory of Relative Superiority, or more accurately, the Indirect Theory of Relative Superiority. Indirect Relative Superiority is achieved when a counter state gains and maintains a decisive advantage over a state in an armed political struggle. We hypothesize that numerically inferior forces can obtain Relative Superiority over time through the use of six principles of Indirect Offensive Operations: Security, Networking, Purpose, Indoctrination, Influence, and Agility 14. SUBJECT TERMS Unconventional Warfare, Relative Superiority, Indirect Warfare, 15. NUMBER OF Political Opportunity Structures, Mobilizing Structures, Strategic Framing, Cognitive PAGES Liberation, mujahedin, Afghanistan, Cuba, Che Guevara, Bolivia, Iran, IRGC, Hezbollah, 111 Lebanon, 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF THIS CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT REPORT PAGE ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UU NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 i THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ii Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THE THEORY OF UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE: WIN, LOSE, AND DRAW William “Dave” Driver Major, Special Forces B.A. Political Science, Augusta State University 1996 Bruce E. DeFeyter Chief Warrant Officer 3, United States Army B.S. Liberal Studies, Excelsior College, 2005 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN DEFENSE ANALYSIS from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL December 2008 Authors: William “Dave” Driver Bruce E. DeFeyter Approved by: Gordon McCormick Thesis Advisor George Lober Second Reader Gordon McCormick Chairman, Department of Defense Analysis iii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK iv ABSTRACT Clausewitz states that “The defensive form of warfare is intrinsically stronger than the offense” and to defeat ‘the stronger form of warfare’ “an army’s best weapon is superior numbers.” Given these two facts, how do special operations forces defeat numerically superior forces fighting in the defense? William H. McRaven’s book, Spec Ops, lays out a theory of special operations and six principles that are “applicable across the spectrum of special operations” (McRaven, 1995, p. 3). McRaven’s thesis postulates that numerically inferior forces can obtain Relative Superiority for short duration through the use of the six principles of special operations. McRaven’s thesis is focused on the direct component of special operations. The theory, arguably, does not cover the full range of special operations; specifically it fails to address the indirect component of special operations, Unconventional Warfare. Given that the defense is the superior form of warfare and numbers count, the question emerges, how can a sponsored insurgent organization or resistance movement defeat the state, which begins with an opening advantage of vastly superior numbers and already in the defense posture? The answer may be found on the flip side of McRaven’s Theory of Relative Superiority, or more accurately, the Indirect Theory of Relative Superiority. Indirect Relative Superiority is achieved when a counter state gains and maintains a decisive advantage over a state in an armed political struggle. We hypothesize that numerically inferior forces can obtain Relative Superiority over time through the use of six principles of Indirect Offensive Operations: Security, Networking, Purpose, Indoctrination, Influence, and Agility v THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK vi TABLE OF CONTENTS I. REVISITING MCRAVEN’S THEORY OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS ...............1 A. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 B. MCRAVEN’S THEORY AND PRINCIPLES..............................................2 C. INTRODUCTION TO THE THEORY OF UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE.......................................................................................................3 II. THE THEORY OF UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE.........................................5 A. RELATIVE SUPERIORITY..........................................................................5 B. THE UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE MODEL ...................................12 1. Planning Phase ...................................................................................13 2. Preparation Phase..............................................................................14 3. Execution Phase .................................................................................16 C. CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY ..............................................................16 III. UNITED STATES’ WIN: MUJAHEDIN IN AFGHANISTAN............................17 A. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................17 B. BACKGROUND. ...........................................................................................17 C. THE PRINCIPLES OF UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE....................28 1. Security ...............................................................................................28 2. Networking .........................................................................................29 3. Purpose................................................................................................29 4. Indoctrination.....................................................................................30 5. Influence..............................................................................................31 6. Agility..................................................................................................31 D. DETERMINING RELATIVE SUPERIORITY .........................................32 1. The Initial Conditions: 27 April 1978 ..............................................32 2. Soviet Invasion: 24 December 1979..................................................33 3. Massoud Peace Deal: 1983-1984.......................................................35
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Military Guide to Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century
    US Army TRADOC TRADOC G2 Handbook No. 1 AA MilitaryMilitary GuideGuide toto TerrorismTerrorism in the Twenty-First Century US Army Training and Doctrine Command TRADOC G2 TRADOC Intelligence Support Activity - Threats Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 15 August 2007 DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. 1 Summary of Change U.S. Army TRADOC G2 Handbook No. 1 (Version 5.0) A Military Guide to Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century Specifically, this handbook dated 15 August 2007 • Provides an information update since the DCSINT Handbook No. 1, A Military Guide to Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, publication dated 10 August 2006 (Version 4.0). • References the U.S. Department of State, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Country Reports on Terrorism 2006 dated April 2007. • References the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Reports on Terrorist Incidents - 2006, dated 30 April 2007. • Deletes Appendix A, Terrorist Threat to Combatant Commands. By country assessments are available in U.S. Department of State, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Country Reports on Terrorism 2006 dated April 2007. • Deletes Appendix C, Terrorist Operations and Tactics. These topics are covered in chapter 4 of the 2007 handbook. Emerging patterns and trends are addressed in chapter 5 of the 2007 handbook. • Deletes Appendix F, Weapons of Mass Destruction. See TRADOC G2 Handbook No.1.04. • Refers to updated 2007 Supplemental TRADOC G2 Handbook No.1.01, Terror Operations: Case Studies in Terror, dated 25 July 2007. • Refers to Supplemental DCSINT Handbook No. 1.02, Critical Infrastructure Threats and Terrorism, dated 10 August 2006. • Refers to Supplemental DCSINT Handbook No.
    [Show full text]
  • Unconventional Warfare: a Historical Perspective
    Unconventional Warfare: A Historical Perspective NAGAO Yuichiro 1. Preface By definition, a war is fought between sovereign states, and this has become a normative concept when we talk about war. There was a historical background for this. It was the brainchild of political and intellectual leaders of the 17th and 18th centuries who sought to settle differences among people in a civilized manner, and other forms of armed conflict were severely restricted. As the years rolled on into the 20th century, however, unusual armed conflicts have steadily increased. Notwithstanding the paradigm of war between sovereign states has not yet lost its relevance. Meanwhile, the acts of terrorism committed in the United States on September 11 shook the world. Words such as “new war” and “asymmetric war” have since gained currency and have come to be used in various contexts. With these in mind, this paper will survey the history of wars between states and examine in light of these developments the significance that unconventional warfare takes on in armed conflict as a whole. 2. What is Unconventional Warfare? To start with, it is necessary to define the concept “unconventional warfare,” the subject of this paper, to clarify the points of argument contained herein. The antonym of unconventional warfare is conventional warfare, which means a battle between states’ regular armed forces. Therefore, unconventional warfare is a generic term that covers all military and quasi-military operations other than conventional warfare. More specifically, one dictionary lists under the heading “unconventional warfare” revolutionary wars and its constituents, subversion and guerrilla; command raids and other and special operations; terrorism and counter-terrorism.
    [Show full text]
  • Restructuring the Tactical Russian Army for Unconventional Warfare
    Restructuring the Tactical Russian Army for Unconventional Warfare Fort Leavenworth, KS Volume 5, Issue 2 FEB 2014 by Lester W. Grau, PhD, TRISA Foreign Military Studies Office (FMSO) Russian wars in Afghanistan (1979-1989) and Chechnya (1994-1996 and 1999-2006) reintroduced their ground forces to nonlinear warfare that lacked a clear front line and a rear area. Instead, combat was fragmented into close-combat fights, where the Afghan resistance launched sudden attacks against convoys, outposts and security elements or laid ambushes, heavily mined roadways and fought within urban centers or conducted long-range harassment fires. The Chechen resistance functioned under the concepts of “attack and withdraw” and “the attack of swarms of bees at night.” Often the Chechen resistance would form mobile firing groups. Two mortars with crews, each located in a cross- country vehicle, were accompanied by machine gunners, grenadiers, snipers and riflemen. The vehicles would drive into an area, fire a total of five to six mortar rounds accompanied by flat-trajectory fire from the supporting weapons, and then move quickly to a new firing area. Russian artillery would usually not be able to respond quickly enough to interdict theses grtoups. 1 The conventional battlefield with prepared lines of trenches and interlocking fields of fire had been supplanted by mobile strike groups, strongpoint defenses, and combatants who would exploit difficult terrain and blend into the civilian population when threatened. The Russian Army realized that it needed to increase its ability to respond and gain the initiative through agility, mobility, and independent action over a much larger area.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Influence: Applying the Principles of Unconventional Warfare in Peace
    Strategic Influence: Applying the Principles of Unconventional Warfare in Peace Title JUNE 2021 STRATEGIC MULTILAYER ASSESSMENT Author: COL (Ret.) Robert Jones, United States Special Operations Command Series Editor: Ali Jafri, NSI Inc. 1 This white paper presents the views and opinions of the contributing authors. This white paper does not represent official USG policy or position. COL (Ret.) Robert Jones, Senior Strategist, United States Special Operations Command Robert Jones is a retired Army Special Forces Colonel who has served for the past ten years as senior strategist at USSOCOM, with a focus on understanding the nature of the strategic environment, the impact on the character of conflict, and the implications for our Special Operations Forces. He is a core member of the Strategic Multilayer Assessment (SMA) team and a regular lecturer at the Joint Special Operations University and the Air War College. A Cold War and Gulf War vet, he stepped away for a bit to gain experiences as both an emergency manager and a deputy district attorney prior to returning to the Special Operations community to serve from Zamboanga to Kandahar and places in between. Editor’s note: The thoughts, concepts, and products included in this paper are the author’s own, developed in over 30 years as a Special Forces qualified officer both in uniform and during the past 10 years as a civilian strategist at USSOCOM. 2 Strategic Influence: Applying the Principles of Unconventional Warfare in Peace COL (Ret.) Robert Jones, Senior Strategist, United States Special Operations Command1 “The most important aspect of our containment strategy is that it serves to contain ourselves,” former President Dwight Eisenhower reportedly observed after he had left office.
    [Show full text]
  • Guerrilla Warfare Tactics in Urban Environments
    GUERRILLA WARFARE TACTICS IN URBAN ENVIRONMENTS A thesis presented to the Faculty of the US Army Command and General Staff College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE General Studies by PATRICK D. MARQUES, MAJ, USA B.A., Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, 1990 Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 2003 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burder for this collection of information is estibated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burder to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (FROM - TO) 06-06-2003 thesis 05-08-2002 to 06-06-2003 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER GUERRILLA WARFARE TACTICS IN URBAN ENVIRONMENTS 5b. GRANT NUMBER Unclassified 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER Marques, Patrick, D 5e.
    [Show full text]
  • Unconventional Warfare in the Gray Zone
    Special operations forces are extracted from mountain pinnacle in Zabul Province, Afghanistan, after executing air-assault mission to disrupt insurgent communications (U.S. Army/Aubree Clute) Unconventional Warfare in the Gray Zone By Joseph L. Votel, Charles T. Cleveland, Charles T. Connett, and Will Irwin n the months immediately following the illegitimate Taliban government in operatives working alongside an indig- the terrorist attacks on the World Afghanistan that had been providing enous force of some 15,000 Afghan I Trade Center and Pentagon in the sanctuary for al Qaeda. This strikingly irregulars.1 The Taliban regime fell autumn of 2001, a small special opera- successful unconventional warfare within a matter of weeks. Many factors tions forces (SOF) element and inter- (UW) operation was carried out with a contributed to this extraordinary agency team, supported by carrier- and U.S. “boots on the ground” presence of accomplishment, but its success clearly land-based airstrikes, brought down roughly 350 SOF and 110 interagency underscores the potential and viability of this form of warfare. What followed this remarkably effec- General Joseph L. Votel, USA, is the Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command. Lieutenant tive operation was more than a decade of General Charles T. Cleveland, USA (Ret.), is a former Commander of U.S. Army Special Operations challenging and costly large-scale irregu- Command. Colonel Charles T. Connett, USA, is Director of the Commander’s Initiatives Group at Headquarters U.S. Army Special Operations Command. Lieutenant Colonel Will Irwin, USA (Ret.), is a lar warfare campaigns in Afghanistan and resident Senior Fellow at the Joint Special Operations University.
    [Show full text]
  • Unconventional Warfare: the Greatest Threat
    Sharma Bharati, International Journal of Advance Research, Ideas and Innovations in Technology ISSN: 2454-132X Impact factor: 4.295 (Volume 4, Issue 1) Available online at www.ijariit.com Unconventional Warfare: The Greatest Threat Bharati Sharma [email protected] Government Science College, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh ABSTRACT Machiavelli said Warfare had started along the origin of mankind, but the continuous development of the arsenals altered the face of warfare. With technological outburst, surpassing all limitations of an attack through air, ground, and water. The World War II summed up with a weapon, nuclear bomb, capable of devastating a whole population of a region and may continue to deform genome perfectness of human race as multiple side-effects. All countries are aware of this fact and therefore cannot afford a war that may enter the atomic stage. With impending atomic threat in the state of war unconventional types of war finds favor and that this moral dilemma provides a safe umbrella to terrorist activities too. Effect of these warfare are not limited in time or space, it is incomprehensive and most of the times enemy remains unknown leaving the suffering state to guess a counter-strategy. The World must be a secure and safe place and therefore eradicating NBC weapons from the scenario, we together can fight against the brutality of Unconventional Warfare. Keywords: Unconventional Warfare, Weapon, Atomic Threat. 1. INTRODUCTION Machiavelli said Warfare had started along the origin of mankind. ‘Every race must indulge in conflict with others and overpower them for survival of themselves.’(Darwin) But continuous warfare changed the face of war-field with the development of the arsenals.
    [Show full text]
  • 6/14/2017 1 Unconventional Warfare Medicine Unconventional Warfare
    6/14/2017 Unconventional Warfare Medicine Office of Special Warfare, Non-Standard Medical Section Principles By, with and through (mindset) Non US-Centric solutions PAC (US E) Reality based risk and outcomes Finesse (judo, not karate) Low tech/Urban considerations History as guide/Long game Unconventional Warfare Medicine Office of Special Warfare, Non-Standard Medical Section “Unconventional Warfare consists of activities conducted to enable a resistance movement or insurgency to coerce, disrupt or overthrow an occupying power or government by operating through or with an underground, auxiliary or guerrilla force in a denied area.” “Unconventional Warfare is warfare that is conducted within enemy lines through guerrilla tactics or subversion, usually supported at least in part by external forces.” “Unconventional Warfare an attempt to achieve military victory through acquiescence, capitulation or clandestine support for one side of an existing conflict.” 1 6/14/2017 Unconventional Warfare Medicine Office of Special Warfare, Non-Standard Medical Section Unconventional Warfare Medicine is the application of medical capabilities, supported by both the advisor and indigenous elements of a guerrilla/insurgent force where, in the context of Unconventional Warfare, the medicine practiced must be of a high enough quality of care to serve both indigenous and advisor forces, even in the absence of a dedicated medical asset, in order to preserve the strength of the fighting force, improve morale, serve the local population, and provide opportunity
    [Show full text]
  • Naval Unconventional Warfare
    Excerpted from Small Wars Journal – Vol 7, Feb 2007 1 NNNAVAL UUUNCONVENTIONAL WWWARFARE ::: SSSUPPORTING GGGWOTGWOT ON THE CCCHEAP Chris Rawley After half a decade, the U.S. Navy continues the struggle for relevancy in the Global War on Terror (GWOT). Several positive programs and a few knee jerk policies have been implemented, such as the stand up of the Naval Expeditionary Combat Command and short notice individual augmentation deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. But an overall operational maritime concept designed to directly support the war remains illusive. The United States military’s ground forces have employed counter-terrorism operations emphasizing unconventional warfare (UW) to counter the fourth generation tactics of a dynamic enemy. By adapting UW doctrine to the maritime environment, the U.S. Navy has an opportunity to secure its role in the GWOT. The Department of Defense defines Unconventional Warfare to include a broad spectrum of military and paramilitary operations predominately utilizing indigenous or surrogate forces. UW is normally conducted in a low visibility or clandestine manner. Although UW is often seen in the context of supporting a guerilla force trying to overthrow an established government, it also has applicability supporting indigenous or proxy forces working to regain control of terrain from terrorist. A large amount of this terrain is found in the thousands of miles of ungoverned coastlines, rivers, and other littoral waterways around the world. These areas can become a refuge to terrorists because many nations are either unable or unwilling to fully control their own sovereign territory. Specific examples include the expansive riparian networks in South America and Central Asia, archipelagic waters throughout Southeast Asia, and much of coastal Africa.
    [Show full text]
  • TRANSFORMATION: a BOLD CASE for UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE By
    NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS TRANSFORMATION: A BOLD CASE FOR UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE by Steven P. Basilici and Jeremy Simmons June 2004 Thesis Advisor: Hy Rothstein Second Reader: David Tucker Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202- 4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED June 2004 Master’s Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE: Transformation: A Bold Case for 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Unconventional Warfare 6. AUTHOR(S) Jeremy L. Simmons and Steven P. Basilici 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Naval Postgraduate School REPORT NUMBER Monterey, CA 93943-5000 9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING ADDRESS(ES) AGENCY REPORT NUMBER N/A 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Way of Irregular War: an Analytical Memoir It Took Action by Congress and the Support of the President to Drive the Reforms That We Needed
    C O R P O R A T I O N The AMERICAN WAY of IRREGULAR WAR An Analytical Memoir CHARLES T. CLEVELAND WITH DANIEL EGEL For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/PEA301-1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9974-0544-9 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2020 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover design by Rick Penn-Kraus; image from ArtCore/AdobeStock Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface American irregular warfare is the United States’ unique, and in recent times troubled, approach to conflict in which armed civilian or para- military forces, and not regular armies, are the primary combatants.
    [Show full text]
  • NATO's Hybrid Flanks: Handling Unconventional Warfare in The
    Research Paper Research Division – NATO Defense College, Rome – No. 112 – April 2015 NATO’s Hybrid Flanks Handling Unconventional Warfare in the South and the East by Andreas Jacobs and Guillaume Lasconjarias1 The Research Division (RD) of the NATO De- fense College provides NATO’s senior leaders with Introduction sound and timely analyses and recommendations on current issues of particular concern for the Al- liance. Papers produced by the Research Division Since the start of the Ukrainian conflict, a new buzzword has convey NATO’s positions to the wider audience dominated the international security debate: “hybrid warfare.” of the international strategic community and con- tribute to strengthening the Transatlantic Link. But in spite of the recent hype about this topic, the idea of using The RD’s civil and military researchers come from unconventional means and actors in conflict is not new. In fact, it is in a variety of disciplines and interests covering a broad spectrum of security-related issues. They many ways as old as warfare itself. In a recent speech, NATO Secretary conduct research on topics which are of interest to the political and military decision-making bodies General Jens Stoltenberg reiterated that “… the first hybrid warfare we of the Alliance and its member states. know of might be the Trojan Horse, so we have seen it before.”2 But The opinions expressed are those of the authors what we may not have seen before in warfare is the scale of use and and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the NATO exploitation of old tools in new ways.
    [Show full text]