Where does irregular warfare fit within the framework of national security policy? Does the recently released Irregular Warfare (IW) Annex attenuate focus, or relegate IW to a policy afterthought? How can IW concepts become enduring elements of a comprehensive effort toward competition and conflict with US adversaries?
Episode 16 of the Irregular Warfare Podcast is an examination of the IW Annex to the National Defense Strategy of 2018 and includes substantive insight from the US Department of Defense office responsible for the product’s development and recent release. Retired Col. David Maxwell and Mr. Deak Roh explain the impetus for producing the annex and its relevance in an era defined by great power competition. They then discuss the practical considerations of implementation and institutionalization of the annex’s concepts, from aspects of campaign planning to professional military education, and emphasize the critical roles of both special operations and conventional forces. Importantly, our guests evaluate the manner in which these concepts can become enduring elements of the US national security strategy and a crucial component of political warfare in the future.
David Maxwell is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He is a thirty-year veteran of the US Army, retiring as a Special Forces colonel. He served over twenty years in Asia, primarily in Korea, Japan, and the Philippines. Following retirement, he served as the associate director of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. Col. Maxwell has taught unconventional warfare and special operations for policymakers and strategists at graduate schools across the Washington, DC area.
Deak Roh is the acting principal director in the office of the deputy assistant secretary of defense for special operations and combating terrorism (SOCT). Prior to this role he was the director for irregular warfare policy in SOCT, where he led the Office of the Secretary of Defense team to revamp irregular warfare policy to focus on great power competition, including leading the development of the Irregular Warfare Annex to the National Defense Strategy. He has twenty years of experience in defense and security policy.
The Irregular Warfare Podcast is a collaboration between the Modern War Institute and Princeton University’s Empirical Studies of Conflict Project. You can listen to the full episode below, and you can find it and subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify, TuneIn, or your favorite podcast app. And be sure to follow the podcast on Twitter!
If irregular warfare can be defined as ''a struggle among state and non-state actors to influence populations and affect legitimacy,''
Then it becomes glaringly obvious that irregular warfare relates as much — and possibly even more — to conflicts and competitions between great powers, as it does to conflicts and competition between great powers and lesser entities.
Examples:
1. In the Old Cold War of yesterday — when the Soviets/the communists were doing "expansion" and the U.S./the West, in the face of same, were doing "containment" —
a. It was the Soviets/the communists who ROUTINELY worked "by, with and through" their "natural" non-state actor allies in these such matters, to wit: "by, with and through" the more-liberal/the more-pro-change members of the world's populations. And, as one might expect in these circumstances,
b. It was the U.S./the West — to counter same — who ROUTINELY worked "by, with and through" our "natural" non-state actor allies in these situations, i.e., "by, with and through" the more-conservative/the more-traditional/the more-no-change elements of the world's populations.
2. In the New/Reverse Cold War of the late, however — when it has been the U.S./the West that has been in "expansionist" mode and such adversaries as Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea and the Islamists that have been in "containment" mode — in this such circumstance:
a. It has been the U.S./the West that has — ROUTINELY — worked "by, with and through" our "natural" non-state actor allies in these situations, to wit: the more-liberal/the more-pro-change members of the world's populations. This while (in true "turnabout is fair play" fashion?):
b. It has been such adversaries as Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea and the Islamists — in order to counter our such "expansionist" moves — who have ROUTINELY worked "by, with and through," in this case, their "natural" non-state actor allies in this scenario, i.e., the more-conservative/more-traditional//the more-no-change members of the world's populations.
Bottom Line Thought — Based on the Above:
Given that both the "expansionist" grand strategies of world's great powers — and indeed the "containment" grand strategies of the world's great powers — BOTH YESTERDAY AND TODAY — were, in fact, actually DESIGNED AND PLANNED around the exceptional use of such non-state actor "natural allies" as I describe above,
And given that "expansion" and "containment" by great powers is likely to define the "conflict and competition environment" again for at least the next 70 years,
Then how is it possible that we would:
a. Instead of making "irregular warfare" the CENTRAL THEME of our National Defense Strategy,
b. Consign it to an — afterthought — "annex" only ????
Regarding lack of support for "Boom-Bust Cycle", one possible issue preventing civilian leadership from defining Information Warfare is that some are using such techniques in the political realm. They'd certainly object to business as usual being defined as Info Warfare.
One Army organization has weathered the boom and bust cycle, but barely. The US Army School of the Americas was key to IW in Latin America from the late 1940 to 2000 when those conflicts waned due to achieving the political objectives of the Cold War and containment. It was closed due to political pressures, but re-emerged in 2001 as the Western Hemisphere institute for Security Cooperation always with its eye on the prize to influence partners thru military education and training.
The irregular warfare of ourselves, we must learn to control and balance our body mind & energies.
I suggest ayurveda, Yoga, and compassionate love / pristine mind (dgozgchen).
Irregular warfare in great power competition is playing out, altho not with the familiar high end weapons (nor yet that of the future). The IW involving non-state armed groups in proxy wars/ violent armed conflicts remain focus on armed rebellion against state political governance. The contested areas increasingly are highly urban areas where the stakes are concentrated —- state resources, the infrastructure & services both targets of attacks & essential tools of war — esp in IT & the fertile ground of populace with political grievances, alienated, disempowered, poor, marginalized, refugees, migrantsetc . Protecting civilians will always be a major challenge not so much for the nature of weapons used, BUT on the efficacy and use of data/intelligence in effective counter insurgency. Obviously, the most convenient feasiblle means to weed out insurgents & terrorists embeded in the communities is aerial bombings and short notice for civilian population to evacuate the area,disregarding the resulting anarchy that ensue from a breakdown of rule &order. In such a scenario, the population become the victims of both protagonist & antagonist to the conflict as well as other criminal elements — in disregard of human rights, frequent resort to torture as indispensasble to attain the ends. Civilians are pawns if not mere obstructions to all armed parties. The state always appropriate the high moral ground (internal defense) to justifify the means. Poor intelligence & planning in counter insurgency with aerial bombing to expose & smoke out shadow elements, torture of civilians to extract information and siege effect suffering, flatten cities destroying the infrastructure displacement, with refugees unable to return & rehabilitate their homes, livelihood& communities. It does not help that IW of counter insurgency is never a just war, where looting, pillage, vendettas &gender-based violence are usual features. Battles are won but give birth to a new generation born to injustice, trauma a nd nurtured in war, with the pscye of of a warrior & new breed of warfighters. IW as in counter insurgency/proxy wars is military resort for immediate and quick fix to armed conflict to attain political ends.
(P.S. observations like this are unsafe. Out here, a car is parked outside my gate, loud conversation naming title of this article & i didn't even mention any country tsk tsk tsk these people know who committed atrocities in IW)