What lessons should the United States and its allies take from twenty years of irregular warfare since 9/11? What will the future of irregular warfare look like? Episode 38 of the Irregular Warfare Podcast is a recording of the keynote policy panel, featuring prominent scholars and practitioners, from the inaugural Irregular Warfare Initiative conference held on September 10, 2021.
The panel opens with a broad agreement that while the nature of irregular warfare has not changed, its character will continue to evolve. A range of topics are then discussed, including a reflection on the causes of the United States’ strategic failure in Afghanistan, the important role of information and influence operations in modern conflict, what institutional reforms might be needed within the US government to succeed in future irregular warfare contexts, and more.
Panelists include:
Major General Richard Angle is the commanding general of 1st Special Forces Command, with operational experience spanning most conflict zones of America’s military commitments over the past twenty-five years.
Professor Audrey Kurth Cronin is a distinguished professor of international security at the American University and is the author of How Terrorism Ends: Understanding the Decline and Demise of Terrorist Campaigns and Power to the People: How Open Technological Innovation is Arming Tomorrow’s Terrorists.
Professor David Kilcullen of the University of New South Wales, Canberra and Arizona State University has published numerous books examining irregular warfare to include Out of the Mountains: The Coming Age of the Urban Guerrilla and Dragons and Snakes: How the Rest Learned to Fight the West.
Ambassador and retired Lieutenant General Doug Lute served in a multitude of roles, including as deputy national security advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan and as the United States representative to NATO.
The moderator for this discussion is Dr. Jacob Shapiro, professor of politics at Princeton University, managing director of the Empirical Studies of Conflict Project, and the author of multiple books and articles on irregular warfare, including Small Wars, Big Data: the Information Revolution in Modern Conflict and The Terrorist’s Dilemma: Managing Violent Covert Organizations.
The hosts for this episode are Kyle Atwell and Andy Maher, please contact them with any questions about this episode or the Irregular Warfare Podcast.
The Irregular Warfare Podcast is a product of the Irregular Warfare Initiative, a collaboration between the Modern War Institute at West Point and Princeton University’s Empirical Studies of Conflict Project—dedicated to bridging the gap between scholars and practitioners to support the community of irregular warfare professionals.
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!
Image credit: US Army
With regard to irregular warfare in the New/Reverse Cold War of today, the central underlying problem that the U.S./the West faces today — both here at home in the U.S./the West and there abroad/elsewhere — this is much the same as the central underlying problem that the Soviets/the communists faced — both in their homelands and elsewhere/abroad — in the Old Cold War of yesterday:
a. This such central underlying problem being:
b. How to achieve — against significant opposition both at home and abroad — the political, economic, social and/or value "changes" desired/needed/required; this, so as to better promote political and economic communism throughout the world in the Old Cold War of yesterday — and/or so as to better promote market-democracy throughout the world in the New/Reverse Cold War of today.
At this juncture, we must take special care to note that:
If one is in a "promoting change" mode (as the U.S./the West is now and as the Soviets/the communists were in the Old Cold War of yesterday), then
a. The more conservative/the more traditional/the more no-change elements of the world's populations (to include these such elements within one's own homeland), these become your "natural enemies" (and, thus, become your at home and abroad "prevent change" opponent's "natural allies"). This, while:
b. The more liberal/the more pro-changes elements of the world's populations (to include these such elements within one's own homeland), these become your "natural allies" (and, thus, become your at home and abroad "prevent change" opponent's "natural allies").
Given that the U.S./the West is in — both at home and abroad — "promote change" mode today — and thus is having to deal with "prevent change" forces both in our own homelands and throughout the world — the following irregular warfare strategy — discussed by LTG (ret.) Cleveland, et. al, below — this seems to make great sense. Yes?
"In the same way that the conventionally focused American way of war is defined by America's technical and industrial capacity and technological edge, the American way of irregular war is tied to our notions of religious pluralism, democracy, and, above all, human rights. And although the American way of war protects us against near-peep powers and guarantees the lanes of global commerce, the American way of irregular war protects our way of life by both promoting our worldview and giving people the tools to realize the same opportunities that we have had. … "
(See beginning at the last paragraph of Page 5 of the Introduction chapter to Rand paper by LTG [ret.] Charles Cleveland entitled: "The American Way of Irregular War: An Analytical Memoir.")
"The Achilles’ heel of our authoritarian adversaries is their inherent fear of their own people; the United States must be ready to capitalize on this fear. … An American way of irregular war will reflect who we are as a people, our diversity, our moral code, and our undying belief in freedom."
(See the "Conclusion" of the Rand paper "The American Way of Irregular War: An Analytical Memoir" by Charles T. Cleveland and Daniel Egel.)
"Advocates of UW first recognize that, among a population of self-determination seekers, human interest in liberty trumps loyalty to a self-serving dictatorship, that those who aspire to freedom can succeed in deposing corrupt or authoritarian rulers, and that unfortunate population groups can and often do seek alternatives to a life of fear, oppression, and injustice. Second, advocates believe that there is a valid role for the U.S. Government in encouraging and empowering these freedom seekers when doing so helps to secure U.S. national security interests."
(See the National Defense University Press paper "Unconventional Warfare in the Gray Zone" by Joseph L. Votel, Charles T. Cleveland, Charles T. Connett, and Will Irwin)
Please change my second subparagraph "b" above to read:
b. The more liberal/the more pro-changes elements of the world's populations (to include these such elements within one's own homeland), these become your "natural allies" (and, thus, become your at home and abroad "prevent change" opponent's "natural ENEMIES").
Apologies.
LTG (ret.) Charles Cleveland, GEN (ret.) Joseph Votel, etc. (see my initial comment above) — much like their Russian, Chinese, Iranian, etc., counterparts — these folks seem to see today's "conflict environment" (the New/Reverse Cold War of today) in much the same way that they saw the Old Cold War of yesterday, for example, as a conflict wherein:
a. "The main battlespace is the mind." (See "Russia's New Generation Warfare in Ukraine" by Janis Berzins, National Defense Academy of Latvia, April 2014, Page 5.) And, thus, that:
b. "The human domain is the critical area of competition, and society is the current and future battlefield." (See the Small Wars Journal article "The Battlefield of Tomorrow Fought Today: Winning in the Human Domain, by MG James B. Linder, et. al; therein, see the end of the second paragraph under the main sub-heading "How We Fight: Shape, Deter, and Defeat.")
From this such perspective, thus, we can see why:
a. LTG Cleveland, GEN Votel, etc., above, would seek to work more by, with and through the more-liberal/the more-progressive/ more-pro-change elements of our own, our opponents', and the world at-large's populations (this, to promote and achieve "change."). And why:
b. Their counterparts in Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea, etc., thus threatened, would seek to work more by, with and through the more-conservative/the more-traditional/the more-no-change and/or reverse change elements of their own, our own and the world at-large's populations.
Here are some examples of my item "b" (immediately above) activity — activity which, I suggest, is what prompted LTG Cleveland, GEN Votel, etc.'s suggested "countering" activity noted at my item "a" immediately above:
"Liberal democratic societies have, in the past few decades, undergone a series of revolutionary changes in their social and political life, which are not to the taste of all their citizens. For many of those, who might be called social conservatives, Russia has become a more agreeable society, at least in principle, than those they live in. Communist Westerners used to speak of the Soviet Union as the pioneer society of a brighter future for all. Now, the rightwing nationalists of Europe and North America admire Russia and its leader for cleaving to the past."
(See "The American Interest" article "The Reality of Russian Soft Power" by John Lloyd and Daria Litinova.)
“Compounding it all, Russia’s dictator has achieved all of this while creating sympathy in elements of the Right that mirrors the sympathy the Soviet Union achieved in elements of the Left. In other words, Putin is expanding Russian power and influence while mounting a cultural critique that resonates with some American audiences, casting himself as a defender of Christian civilization against Islam and the godless, decadent West.”
(See the “National Review” item entitled: “How Russia Wins” by David French.)
"During the Cold War, the USSR was perceived by American conservatives as an 'evil empire,' as a source of destructive cultural influences, while the United States was perceived as a force that was preventing the world from the triumph of godless communism and anarchy. The USSR, by contrast, positioned itself as a vanguard of emancipation, as a fighter for the progressive transformation of humanity (away from religion and toward atheism), and against the reactionary forces of the West. Today positions have changed dramatically; it is the United States or the ruling liberal establishment that in the conservative narrative has become the new or neo-USSR, spreading subversive ideas about family or the nature of authority around the world, while Russia has become almost a beacon of hope, 'the last bastion of Christian values' that helps keep the world from sliding into a liberal dystopia. Russia’s self-identity has changed accordingly; now it is Russia who actively resists destructive, revolutionary experiments with fundamental human institutions, experiments inspired by new revolutionary neo-communists from the United States. Hence the cautious hopes that the U.S. Christian right have for contemporary Russia: They are projecting on Russia their fantasies of another West that has not been infected by the virus of cultural liberalism."
(See the December 18, 2019, Georgetown University, Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs article "Global Culture Wars from the Perspective of Russian and American Actors: Some Preliminary Conclusions," by Dmitry Uzlaner. Look to the paragraph beginning with "Russia and the United States as screens for each other’s projections.")
At this point, I guess I should address "the elephant in the room" question, which is:
If the world sees that a significant portion of the populations of the U.S./the West no longer support the matters that LTG Cleveland, GEN Votel, etc., hoped to "weaponize" above — this, in their American Way of Irregular War" strategy/effort noted at my initial comment —
For example, if the world sees that a significant portion of the populations of the U.S./the West no longer support such things as "religious pluralism," "democracy," "human rights," "diversity," "our moral code," "our undying belief in freedom," and/or if the world sees that we no longer support those "unfortunate population groups" (both here at home and there abroad) "who seek alternatives to a life of fear, oppression, and injustice" —
Then:
a. In this such circumstances,
b. Is LTG Cleveland, GEN Votel's, etc., "American Way of Irregular Warfare" effort doomed/gone for good/no longer available for us to use?