DOCSLIB.ORG

The Insufficiency of U.S. Irregular Warfare Doctrine

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Insufficiency of U.S. Irregular Warfare Doctrine Special forces from Gulf Cooperation Council nation attempt to hook boarding ladder onto U.S. Army vessel “Corinth” during visit, board, search, and seizure training in Arabian Gulf during exercise Eagle Resolve, March 17, 2015 (U.S. Air Force/Kathryn L. Lozier) The Insufficiency of U.S. Irregular Warfare Doctrine By John A. Pelleriti, Michael Maloney, David C. Cox, Heather J. Sullivan, J. Eric Piskura, and Montigo J. Hawkins s the United States enters a new to disrupt and degrade the Nation mation, cyber, drug, economic, and era of near-peer competition, over time. China and Russia, Iran and unconventional warfare, to avoid and A current irregular warfare (IW) North Korea, and violent extremist offset U.S. conventional military advan- doctrine is insufficient to counter organizations (VEOs) have been using tages. While aware of threats, U.S. adversary irregular strategies intended irregular methods, including infor- strategists struggle to define them, as evidenced by the frequent use of non- doctrinal, poorly defined terms such as hybrid, gray zone, nontraditional, Colonel John A. Pelleriti, ARNG, is G3 Deputy Chief of Staff Operations for the Florida National Guard. unconstrained, and asymmetric warfare. Colonel Michael Maloney, USAF, is Commander of the 932 Operations Group at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois. Lieutenant Colonel David C. Cox, USMC, is Commanding Officer of Intelligence Support The doctrinal terms irregular warfare Battalion, Marine Corps Support Facility, in New Orleans, Louisiana. Lieutenant Colonel Heather J. and unconventional warfare (UW) Sullivan, USAF, is Commander of the 349th Force Support Squadron at Travis Air Force Base, California. provide a common point of departure Lieutenant Commander J. Eric Piskura, USN, is Assistant Operations Officer, Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center, in Norfolk, Virginia. Major Montigo J. Hawkins, USA, is a Logistics for the discussion, but are incomplete, Officer at U.S. Transportation Command. generally not well understood, and 104 Joint Doctrine / Insufficiency of U.S. Irregular Warfare Doctrine JFQ 93, 2nd Quarter 2019 often misused. To be successful in this area.”4 UW is currently only conducted of armed conflict by expanding coercion new era of irregular competition, U.S. by SOF, primarily Army Special Forces, to new fronts, violating principles of planners must reassess and update IW- who are specially organized, trained, and sovereignty, exploiting ambiguity, and related terms, concepts, and authorities equipped to conduct UW by U.S. Special deliberately blurring the lines between required to counter irregular threat Operations Command.5 While UW is civil and military goals.”9 The NDS also strategies. focused on coercing, disrupting, or over- acknowledges adversarial use of threat Joint Publication 1, Doctrine for the throwing hostile governments, it adds the strategies, short of open warfare, to Armed Forces of the United States, defines complex requirement of working with achieve its goals that include informa- IW as “a violent struggle among state and or through an insurgency or resistance tion warfare, ambiguous or denied nonstate actors for legitimacy and influ- movement to achieve UW objectives. proxy operations, and subversion.10 ence over the relevant population(s).”1 Recent UW examples include U.S. SOF Both documents make a clear case that This definition evolved largely out of support to the Northern Alliance in the most senior U.S. leaders understand post-9/11 counterinsurgency (COIN) Afghanistan and anti–Islamic State forces the irregular nature of the threats the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and in Syria. Adversary definitions of UW Nation is facing. is focused on influencing the relevant often differ from the U.S. definition and Threatened use of unrestricted war- population to defeat insurgencies. While include a much broader scope of non- fare, not to be confused with IW or UW, appropriate for COIN environments, traditional warfare activities. These are is not new. For years, U.S. military and current IW doctrine is not focused on discussed in more detail later, but, suffice professional debate has examined and countering strategic irregular threats it to say, the current U.S. definition is incorporated elements of unrestricted intended to undermine the United States too narrow to counter the broad range war, albeit under a variety of models and over time. Traditional, or conventional, of irregular strategies being employed by names. Recognition of recent success- warfare also falls short. Traditional America’s adversaries. ful employment of unrestricted warfare warfare consists of major force-on-force against the United States is starting to operations and is characterized as “a The Use of Unrestricted emerge in military and political dialogue violent struggle for domination between Warfare and the national strategic documents nation-states or coalitions and alliances of National strategic documents clearly outlined. At a time when many aspects of nation-states.”2 While traditional warfare outline the irregular threats posed the conventional U.S. military are at their covers nation-state level competition, by China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, peak, primary competitors are freely em- it is insufficient to counter most state- and VEOs. U.S. strategists previ- ploying unrestricted warfare to counter sponsored irregular threats. The risk of ously referred to this group as “4+1” U.S. strength. escalation with China, Russia, Iran, or and more recently as “2+2+1.” The As early as the 1980s, the Chinese North Korea—all current or potential nu- National Security Strategy makes a began the process of modernizing their clear powers—is too high for traditional clear case that the 2+2+1 are actively conventional force structure, power warfare to be a viable strategic option in competing against the United States, projection capability, and doctrine. The most cases. This is why the indirect ap- its allies, and partners.6 The document unprecedented success of the U.S.-led proach is so attractive to U.S. adversaries states, “many actors have become coalition in the Gulf War provided the and why they have become highly skilled skilled at operating below the thresh- Chinese with a template for future war at operating below the level of traditional old of military conflict—challenging through recognition that technological conflict and are careful not to provoke the United States, our allies, and our dominance gave the United States and its one.3 While conventional capabilities may partners with hostile actions cloaked allies unparalleled information that could certainly be leveraged in nontraditional in deniability.”7 It further details how exploit an opposing force.11 Recognizing warfare, major combat operations against adversaries are disrupting and degrading the difficulty and expense of trying to near-peer competitors is seldom a feasible sources of American strength utilizing match the U.S. conventional military in strategic option. transnational criminal organizations, the near term, the Chinese focused on UW, a related concept to IW, is cyberspace, and economic warfare.8 The overcoming the conventional advantages often misused and generally not well key takeaway is not that they are com- that contributed to military dominance. understood outside of the special opera- peting with the United States, but how Unrestricted warfare doctrine was a tions forces (SOF) community. UW is they are competing. U.S. adversaries are by-product of this quest, ultimately not merely the opposite of conventional not interested in a conventional fight, introduced to the public in February warfare, but is defined as “activities to but prefer to attack indirectly so as not 1999 when two Chinese PLA Air Force enable a resistance movement or insur- to provoke conventional conflict. The colonels, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, gency to coerce, disrupt, or overthrow National Defense Strategy adds, “Both published the book Unrestricted a government or occupying power revisionist powers and rogue regimes Warfare.12 by operating with an underground, are competing across all dimensions of Unrestricted Warfare hypothesized auxiliary, or guerrilla force in a denied power. They have increased efforts short that modern warfare would no longer JFQ 93, 2nd Quarter 2019 Pelleriti et al. 105 Soldiers assigned to 7th Special Forces Group conduct urban warfare training during Emerald Warrior 17 at Hurlburt Field, Florida, March 7, 2017 (U.S. Air Force/Barry Loo) conform to the Clausewitzian principles would be a mixture of covert and overt, military means. Because Iran lacks the of using armed forces “to compel [the] licit and illicit activities. “Combatants” size, influence, and resources of China, enemy to do our will,”13 but had instead would be representative of the popula- their application of unrestricted warfare transformed into a layered and inter- tion: civilians, businessmen, politicians, may be more aggressive. Lacking the minable campaign “using all means, servicemembers, entrepreneurs, criminals, same options as China, and operating including armed force or non-armed and terrorists, all constantly shifting in a vastly different regional environ- force, military and non-military, and le- between roles. Conventional military ment, Iran’s employment of unrestricted thal and non-lethal means to compel the battles would be secondary in nature and warfare comes in the form of support for enemy to accept one’s interests.”14 Such complementary to other efforts,
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]
  • Applying Traditional Military Principles to Cyber Warfare
    2012 4th International Conference on Cyber Confl ict Permission to make digital or hard copies of this publication for internal use within NATO and for personal or educational use when for non-profi t or non-commercial C. Czosseck, R. Ottis, K. Ziolkowski (Eds.) purposes is granted providing that copies bear this notice and a full citation on the 2012 © NATO CCD COE Publications, Tallinn first page. Any other reproduction or transmission requires prior written permission by NATO CCD COE. Applying Traditional Military Principles to Cyber Warfare Samuel Liles Marcus Rogers Cyber Integration and Information Computer and Information Operations Department Technology Department National Defense University iCollege Purdue University Washington, DC West Lafayette, IN [email protected] [email protected] J. Eric Dietz Dean Larson Purdue Homeland Security Institute Larson Performance Engineering Purdue University Munster, IN West Lafayette, IN [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: Utilizing a variety of resources, the conventions of land warfare will be analyzed for their cyber impact by using the principles designated by the United States Army. The analysis will discuss in detail the factors impacting security of the network enterprise for command and control, the information conduits found in the technological enterprise, and the effects upon the adversary and combatant commander. Keywords: cyber warfare, military principles, combatant controls, mechanisms, strategy 1. INTRODUCTION Adams informs us that rapid changes due to technology have increasingly effected the affairs of the military. This effect whether economic, political, or otherwise has sometimes been extreme. Technology has also made substantial impacts on the prosecution of war. Adams also informs us that information technology is one of the primary change agents in the military of today and likely of the future [1].
    [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]
  • Applying Irregular Warfare Principles to Cyber Warfare
    Soldier from 3/187th Infantry, 101st Airborne Division, out of Fort Campbell, Kentucky, sets up SATCOM to communicate further with key rear elements as part of search and attack mission in area of Narizah, Afghanistan, July 23, 2002 (U.S. Army/Todd M. Roy) Applying Irregular Warfare Principles to Cyber Warfare By Frank C. Sanchez, Weilun Lin, and Kent Korunka he cyberspace threat exists in a cyberspace and cyberspace threats that and can foresee, rapidly respond to, realm that does not conform to are initiated by faceless, borderless, and and counter cyberspace threats, the T the physical limits of land, sea, sometimes nationless enemies. These U.S. military’s strategy and approach to air, and space. Unlike these traditional enemies manifest in a domain neither cyberspace must adapt and incorporate domains, cyberspace fosters an unpre- confined nor governed by the tradi- unconventional approaches and hybrid dictable threat that can adjust, morph, tional norms and rules of war, which warfare into its operational capability. and reproduce without a national the broader military has no experience Despite its importance, the Nation’s identity or face.1 The challenge of the undertaking. To ensure the United leaders, strategists, and military planners military is to posture its approach to States maintains cyberspace dominance struggle to understand how cyberspace operations (CO) fit into national security as an instrument of national policy. A Commander Frank C. Sanchez, USN, is an Action Officer on the Joint Staff J32, Intelligence, significant shortcoming is due to the Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Operations. Major Weilun Lin, USAF, is Chief of the Central and leaders’ lack of experience and basic South Asia Branch, Joint Cyberspace Center, U.S.
    [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]
  • Maritime Irregular Warfare
    CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that EDUCATION AND THE ARTS helps improve policy and decisionmaking through ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT research and analysis. HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from INFRASTRUCTURE AND www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND TRANSPORTATION Corporation. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS NATIONAL SECURITY Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Support RAND Purchase this document TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY Browse Reports & Bookstore Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND National Defense Research Institute View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. Characterizing and Exploring the Implications of MARITIME IRREGULAR WARFARE MOLLY DUNIGAN | DICK HOFFMANN PETER CHALK | BRIAN NICHIPORUK | PAUL DELUCA Prepared for the United States Navy Approved for public release; distribution unlimited NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE The research described in this report was prepared for the United States Navy.
    [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]
  • Fourth-Generation War and Other Myths
    FOURTH-GENERATION WAR AND OTHER MYTHS Antulio J. Echevarria II November 2005 Visit our website for other free publication downloads http://www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil/ To rate this publication click here. This publication is a work of the United States Government, as defined in Title 17, United States Code, section 101. As such, it is in the public domain and under the provisions of Title 17, United States Code, section 105, it may not be copyrighted. ***** The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. This report is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited. ***** This monograph is an expanded version of an article entitled "Deconstructing the theory of Fourth-Generation War," published in the August 2005 symposium of Contemporary Security Policy. ***** Comments pertaining to this report are invited and should be forwarded to: Director, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 122 Forbes Ave, Carlisle, PA 17013-5244. ***** All Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) monographs are available on the SSI Homepage for electronic dissemination. Hard copies of this report also may be ordered from our Homepage. SSI’s Homepage address is: www.StrategicStudies Institute.army.mil. ***** The Strategic Studies Institute publishes a monthly e-mail newsletter to update the national security community on the research of our analysts, recent and forthcoming publications, and upcoming conferences sponsored by the Institute. Each newsletter also provides a strategic commentary by one of our research analysts.
    [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]
  • Defining China's Political Warfare
    To Win without Fighting: Defining China’s Political Warfare Kerry K. Gershaneck Expeditions with MCUP, 2020, pp. 1-34 (Article) Published by Marine Corps University Press For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/795834/summary [ Access provided at 25 Sep 2021 18:32 GMT with no institutional affiliation ] This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To Win without Fighting Defining China’s Political Warfare Professor Kerry K. Gershaneck1 https://doi.org/10.36304/ExpwMCUP.2020.04 Abstract: The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is at war with the world. Chief among the PRC’s weapons in its fight against the United States and many of its allies and partner nations are complex, unrelenting political warfare campaigns, often waged with difficult-to-recognize strategies, tactics, techniques, and procedures. This article will underscore the terms and definitions needed to understand PRC political warfare and offer a historical overview of the PRC’s development of its political warfare capabilities. A solid understanding of both subjects will help American institutions and citizens alike strengthen their ability to identify, deter, counter, and defeat the PRC political warfare threat. Professor Kerry K. Gershaneck is a visiting scholar at the Graduate Institute of East Asian Studies, National Chengchi University in Taiwan; a senior research associate at the Thammasat University Faculty of Law in Thailand; and an adjunct professor with the University of Canberra’s Institute for Governance & Policy Analysis in Australia. He was the distinguished visiting professor at both Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy and the Royal Thai Naval Academy in Thailand for six years.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Strategic Intentions
    APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Russian Strategic Intentions A Strategic Multilayer Assessment (SMA) White Paper May 2019 Contributing Authors: Dr. John Arquilla (Naval Postgraduate School), Ms. Anna Borshchevskaya (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy), Dr. Belinda Bragg (NSI, Inc.), Mr. Pavel Devyatkin (The Arctic Institute), MAJ Adam Dyet (U.S. Army, J5-Policy USCENTCOM), Dr. R. Evan Ellis (U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute), Mr. Daniel J. Flynn (Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)), Dr. Daniel Goure (Lexington Institute), Ms. Abigail C. Kamp (National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START)), Dr. Roger Kangas (National Defense University), Dr. Mark N. Katz (George Mason University, Schar School of Policy and Government), Dr. Barnett S. Koven (National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START)), Dr. Jeremy W. Lamoreaux (Brigham Young University- Idaho), Dr. Marlene Laruelle (George Washington University), Dr. Christopher Marsh (Special Operations Research Association), Dr. Robert Person (United States Military Academy, West Point), Mr. Roman “Comrade” Pyatkov (HAF/A3K CHECKMATE), Dr. John Schindler (The Locarno Group), Ms. Malin Severin (UK Ministry of Defence Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC)), Dr. Thomas Sherlock (United States Military Academy, West Point), Dr. Joseph Siegle (Africa Center for Strategic Studies, National Defense University), Dr. Robert Spalding III (U.S. Air Force), Dr. Richard Weitz (Center for Political-Military Analysis at the Hudson Institute), Mr. Jason Werchan (USEUCOM Strategy Division & Russia Strategic Initiative (RSI)) Prefaces Provided By: RDML Jeffrey J. Czerewko (Joint Staff, J39), Mr. Jason Werchan (USEUCOM Strategy Division & Russia Strategic Initiative (RSI)) Editor: Ms.
    [Show full text]