SAMS Monograph Body
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Hybrid Threat: Is the HBCT Ready for Future Warfare? A Monograph by MAJ Eric N. Lindsay U.S. Army School of Advanced Military Studies United States Army Command and General Staff College Fort Leavenworth, Kansas AY 2009 Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 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 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 burden 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) 03-12-2009 SAMS Monograph 20 JAN- 03 DEC 2009 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Hybrid Threat: Is the HBCT Ready for Future Warfare 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER Lindsay, Eric N., MAJ 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT U.S. Army Command and General Staff College NUMBER ATTN: ATZL-SWD-GD Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027- 2301 9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT This monograph analyzes a Heavy Brigade Combat Team’s (HBCT) preparedness to counter a hybrid threat. The analysis consists initially of developing broad understanding of hybrid warfare/ threat by reviewing numerous proposed definitions. With a general understanding of hybrid warfare/ threat determined, subsequent analysis identified six tenets of hybrid threat from the Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) approved definition. The author’s initial hypothesis is that an HBCT is prepared to confront a hybrid threat. Research supports this hypothesis. U.S. Army doctrine prescribing full spectrum operations is feasible. DOTMLPF analysis indicates that an HBCT is capable of countering an opponent that can simultaneously conduct major combat operations, irregular warfare and criminality, adapting to an HBCT’s actions, reactions and counter-reactions. This capability is however, limited by the scale of an HBCT’s size and capabilities. What is less clear is the validity of the theory of hybrid threat. As illustrated by the research in this monograph, an HBCT can adaptively and simultaneously counter major combat operations, irregular warfare, and criminal activity dependent on the scale of enemy activity. Theoretically, if an HBCT is constrained by scale it is logical that a hybrid threat is so limited. 15. SUBJECT TERMS Hybrid threat, hybrid warfare, DOTMLPF, HBCT, doctrine, contemporary operating environment 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES Stephan J. Banach COL,USA a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE UU 43 19b.US TELEPHONEA NUMBER (include area U U U code) 913-758-3302 Standard Form 298 (Rev . 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18 SCHOOL OF ADVANCED MILITARY STUDIES MONOGRAPH APPROVAL MAJ Eric N. Lindsay Title of Monograph: Hybrid Threat: Is the HBCT Ready for Future Warfare Approved by: __________________________________ Monograph Director Thomas A. Bruscino, Ph.D. ___________________________________ Director, Stefan Banach, COL, IN School of Advanced Military Studies ___________________________________ Director, Robert F. Baumann, Ph.D. Graduate Degree Programs ii Abstract HYBRID THREAT: IS THE HBCT READY FOR FUTURE WARFARE? by Major Eric N. Lindsay, U.S. Army 44 pages. This monograph analyzes the United States Army’s preparedness to counter a hybrid threat. The analysis consists initially with developing broad understanding of hybrid warfare/ threat by reviewing numerous proposed definitions. With a general understanding of hybrid warfare/ threat determined, subsequent analysis identified six tenets of hybrid threat from the Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) approved definition. These tenets are major combat operations, irregular warfare, criminality, terrorism, simultaneity and adaptability. Definitions of the hybrid threat tenets come principally from joint and U.S. Army doctrine. Subsequently an analysis of doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership & education, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF) analysis in accordance with the Joint Capabilities and Integration and Development System (JCIDS) is conducted of a heavy brigade combat team’s (HBCT) ability to counter the tenets of hybrid warfare/ threat. The author’s initial hypothesis is that an HBCT is prepared to confront a hybrid threat. Research supports this hypothesis. U.S. Army doctrine prescribing full spectrum operations is feasible. DOTMLPF analysis indicates that an HBCT is capable of countering an opponent that can simultaneously conduct major combat operations, irregular warfare and criminality, adapting to an HBCT’s actions, reactions and counter-reactions. This capability is however, limited by the scale of an HBCT’s size and capabilities. The review of doctrine relative to irregular warfare determined that the definitions of irregular warfare and terrorism are nearly synonymous. For the purposes of this monograph, terrorism is a tactic of irregular warfare, because doctrinally an HBCT does not conduct counterterrorism. This is problematic because if the concept of hybrid warfare/ threat is feasible; U.S. forces must maintain the capability to counter all its tenets. The HBCT’s capability to counter a hybrid threat is clear; full spectrum operations enable the heavy brigade combat team to respond to an antagonist employing hybrid warfare tactics. What is less clear is the validity of the theory of hybrid threat. Vast numbers of academics and military intellectuals have varying opinions each of which suggesting a hybrid threat can adaptively and simultaneously conduct major combat operations, irregular warfare and criminal activity. As illustrated by the research in this monograph, an HBCT can adaptively and simultaneously counter major combat operations, irregular warfare, and criminal activity dependent on the scale of enemy activity. Theoretically, if an HBCT is constrained by scale it is logical that a hybrid threat is so limited. iii Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Major Combat Operations and Irregular Warfare ..................................................................... 13 Major Combat Operations ..................................................................................................... 14 Irregular Warfare ................................................................................................................... 16 Criminality and Terrorism ......................................................................................................... 23 Criminality ............................................................................................................................. 23 Terrorism ............................................................................................................................... 26 Simultaneity and Adaptability ................................................................................................... 28 Simultaneity ........................................................................................................................... 28 Adaptability ........................................................................................................................... 33 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 36 Feasibility .............................................................................................................................. 36 iv Introduction “We must train ourselves for the unexpected in place of training others for the cut and dried”.1 -Major General J.F.C. Fuller Generalship: Its Diseases and Their Cure, a Study of the Personal Factor in Command The United States Army has recently undergone transformational change. This change was a necessary and evolutionary development from a Cold War force oriented towards high intensity interstate warfare to a post-Cold War, full spectrum force. Was that change sufficient? In the absence of a peer or near-peer competitor, the United States Army has struggled to identify a threat on which to orient its doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership, personnel and facilities (DOTMLPF). The ambiguous nature of the post Cold War international security environment has resulted in a glut of theoretical classifications including military operations other than war (MOOTW), Fourth Generation