blindpig
02-28-2015, 12:38 PM
The origins of the concept of a hybrid war
Village of Fools
colonelcassad
Feb. 28, 18:56
https://geopolicraticus.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/hybrid-warfare-venn-diagram.png?w=460
Watt spotted on an interesting article about the origins of the concept of hybrid wars with reference to American sources. Hybrid warfare. About the origins CONCEPT
Recently, the commander of US forces in Europe, Lieutenant General Ben Hodges said that a few years Russia will be able to simultaneously conduct three operations without additional mobilization. Under one of the operations he was referring to the military conflict in Ukraine, because, as you know, in NATO carefully follow contrived version (and actively spin it in the Western media) that Russia is waging war with Kiev, sending military equipment to the Donbas, specialists and supporting the rebels means. Hodges said that Russia has developed the so-called hybrid war, which successfully tested in Crimea. In recent years, the term is often used, and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Along with asymmetric conflicts and unconventional war (a situation where overt hostilities by both parties not conducted), which are also on the lips of military experts, the concept of hybrid threats is widely used in the documents of the alliance and the Pentagon. The author of this concept is the Frank G. Hoffman, a former officer Marine Corps, and now Research Fellow US Department of Defense. This is a major theorist in the field of armed conflict and military-political strategy, whose opinion is listened designers and decision makers in high offices in Washington and European capitals. Hoffman argues that conflicts will be multimodal (leading in different ways) and multiple-choice, not fitting into the frame simple design on the principle of division into black and white. According to Hoffman future threats may increasingly be characterized as a hybrid mix of traditional and irregular tactics, a decentralized planning and execution, the participation of non-state actors using both simple and complex technologies. Hybrid threats include a number of different modes of warfare, including the standard weapons, irregular tactics and formations, terrorist acts (including violence and coercion) and criminal disorder. Hybrid war can also be multiuzlovymi (conducted and states, and various non-state actors). These multimodal / multiuzlovye actions are carried out either by different departments, or the same. In such conflicts opponents (states, groups of state-sponsored or entities that finance their activities themselves) will use the access to modern military capabilities, including encrypted command systems, portable missiles "ground-to-air" and other modern deadly system; and - promote the organization of protracted guerrilla warfare, which use ambushes, improvised explosive devices and murder. Here is possible to combine high-tech capabilities of such remedies as anti-terrorism and financial cyberwarfare only usually operational and tactical directed and coordinated within the major combat operations to achieve synergies in the physical and psychological dimensions of the conflict. Results can be obtained at all levels of war. It is very strange that Russia is attributed to the development of a hybrid war. Sam Frank Hoffman, in an article published in July 2014, accused Russia, in 2008 in Georgia were applied methods of hybrid war. In earlier work, Hoffman says that "my own definition from the national defense strategy and focuses on modes of conflict opponent. This includes crime ... Many military theorists avoid this element and do not want to deal with something that our culture is sharply rejected and points out that it is law enforcement powers. But the connection between criminal and terrorist organizations worked well, and the growth of drug-terrorist and transnational organizations using smuggling, drugs, human trafficking, extortion, etc., in order to undermine the legitimacy of the local or national governments is obvious enough. Importance of poppy production in Afghanistan reinforces this assessment. In addition, the growing problem of gangs as a form of destructive force in America and in Mexico portends big problems in the future. " Next Hoffman defines a hybrid threat so: any opponent who is both adaptive uses a combination of conventional arms, irregular tactics, terrorism and criminal behavior in the area fighting to achieve their political goals. Indeed, Mexico and Afghanistan are examples of such a hybrid war. For instance, the drug war in Mexico, which in 2006 killed more than 50 thousand. Man, is directly related to internal turf war between drug cartels, corruption in law enforcement and US intervention. As for Afghanistan, there is a kind of combination of local tribes, veterans of the Afghan-Soviet war (Mujahideen), the movement "Taliban" and "Al Qaeda" and securing funding its activities through the production of opium, as well as raising funds from the Islamists, Salafis. Methods of operation - an attack on a NATO base and transport convoys and acts of terror and murder of individuals. At the same response from the US and NATO, as a rule, leading to casualties among civilians, helping to support the local population militants. A reference to the Taliban Hoffman refers to events in Afghanistan and relevant experience that there received the US (since 1979 ). In the book "The conflict in the XXI century. The emergence of hybrid war "(2007), Hoffman writes that analyzed the practices of organizations such as Hamas and" Hezbollah ". Indeed, the US and other experts believe that the Lebanese political organization "Hezbollah" during the conflict with Israel in 2006, the use of hybrid warfare, it also followed the insurgents in Iraq, organizing attacks on US occupation forces. "Hezbollah" is not the structure of the Lebanese army, although the organization has a military wing of small arms. The network structure of the party, based on social and religious ties, was a strong factor in resisting the Israeli attacks. In Iraq, the situation was even more complicated. Against the United States were both Shiite and Sunni militias, as well as former Baathists (supporters of the secular regime of Saddam Hussein). In turn, the "Al-Qaeda" provocations in the country, taking advantage of temporary anarchy. It should be noted that these and other studies indicate an association of Western way of war with the relatively new concept of hybrid threats. In other words, the US, NATO and Israel, on the one hand, the practice of experienced hybrid war, and on the other, to experience for yourself the beauty of hybrid action by the enemy and develop a plan to counter. Evidence of this approach is seen in the fact that the concept of a hybrid war is not only used marines and special operations forces, but also other kinds of armed forces, particularly the Air Force, for which, it would seem, this model of warfare in general is not appropriate. Michael Isherwood in the monograph "Air power for hybrid war", published by the Institute of Mitchell Association of the US Air Force in 2009, gives the following interpretation of a hybrid war: it blurs the distinction between purely conventional and typically irregular war. At the present time, the term has three applications. Hybridity may relate primarily to the combat environment and conditions; secondly, to the strategy and tactics of the enemy; Thirdly, the type of forces that must US create and maintain. In early studies of this phenomenon is often the term used for all of these possibilities. In February 2009, General James Mattis Marines talked about hybrid enemies, and hybrid armed forces, which the United States may also develop to oppose them. When it comes to political goals, hybrid warriors rather take the form of irregular warfare, where participants tend to undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the regime. This will require the US military assistance to strengthen the government's ability to provide social, economic and political needs of its people. It is important to note that the hybrid context of which it is said, is not nothing but a product of globalization, blurs the boundaries of traditional norms and rules. And the engine of globalization were in the first place, the United States. With regard to the sequence of actions, the US military experience in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq was forced to reformat the Joint Staff of the stages of the war. Commanders are now planning operations with zero phase, transforming into a dominant operation, and more - in stability operations and reconstruction. This formula was an important extension of the main stages of the preparation and the main battlefield. A hybrid war is different in that it allows the enemy to engage in several phases in the same time and brings a different set of requirements for the armed forces. Isherwood also notes that potentially can lead hybrid war as North Korea and Iran. He concludes that the complexity of a hybrid war requires military commanders and civilian leaders awareness of their operating environment, or as they say in the Marine Corps, "a sense of space combat." Hybrid enemy can hide among the civilian population, not to be like a typical enemy and use the "e-shelter" to create a global telecommunications market. It should be emphasized that the term "hybrid threats" was used in the last three four-year American reviews on Defense, published in 2006, 2010 and 2014. Consequently, it is well-designed conceptual model which is actually implemented in the military doctrine of the US and its NATO partners. And the armed forces of this country has its use in practice, where necessary, of the Hindu Kush and the Mexican border to the social networks in cyberspace. But somehow blame zinc PS. Of course Russia will be declared guilty because she has recently started to use tools that were previously considered a privilege United States. Thus, Russia has attempted upon the foundations of the modern world revolving around Washington. And of course it will not be forgiven. Actually if during the Olympic War, Russia has pursued a strategy of direct action in the course of the fighting themselves, already during the war in Ukraine, Russia and the United States as, it is a hybrid war, in the spirit of the wars that led the Soviet Union to the United States in various parts of the the world where the various right-wing dictatorships clashes with leftist national liberation movements, almost always figured "soft power" of competing superpowers. In fact, nothing new in the new iteration of hybrid wars no, it's all we have been through, except that the information component of these wars has grown considerably in the light of the explosive growth of information technology. Americans were the first after Iraq realize new opportunities that gave the revolution in telecommunications and incorporated them into their military doctrine, as widely using in the conduct of its wars of aggression, and embedding them in the concept of color revolutions. All other countries, far behind in this component of the state. Crimean operation and subsequent hybrid war in Ukraine showed that Russia is developing in detail some of the components of a modern American military doctrine, so some actions of the parties in support of the junta and the New Russia are so similar, as are based on the same prerequisites alleged modern concept of hybrid warfare. The war in Ukraine, Russia and the United States which are not formally involved, nevertheless, in the framework of the hybrid confrontation causes conflicts in all areas of relations between the US and Russia - on the diplomatic, economic, informational, ideological and military, and Ukraine stands have more reason to which made the application of the projection of military power and other parties.
http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2070233.html
Google Translator
Village of Fools
colonelcassad
Feb. 28, 18:56
https://geopolicraticus.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/hybrid-warfare-venn-diagram.png?w=460
Watt spotted on an interesting article about the origins of the concept of hybrid wars with reference to American sources. Hybrid warfare. About the origins CONCEPT
Recently, the commander of US forces in Europe, Lieutenant General Ben Hodges said that a few years Russia will be able to simultaneously conduct three operations without additional mobilization. Under one of the operations he was referring to the military conflict in Ukraine, because, as you know, in NATO carefully follow contrived version (and actively spin it in the Western media) that Russia is waging war with Kiev, sending military equipment to the Donbas, specialists and supporting the rebels means. Hodges said that Russia has developed the so-called hybrid war, which successfully tested in Crimea. In recent years, the term is often used, and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Along with asymmetric conflicts and unconventional war (a situation where overt hostilities by both parties not conducted), which are also on the lips of military experts, the concept of hybrid threats is widely used in the documents of the alliance and the Pentagon. The author of this concept is the Frank G. Hoffman, a former officer Marine Corps, and now Research Fellow US Department of Defense. This is a major theorist in the field of armed conflict and military-political strategy, whose opinion is listened designers and decision makers in high offices in Washington and European capitals. Hoffman argues that conflicts will be multimodal (leading in different ways) and multiple-choice, not fitting into the frame simple design on the principle of division into black and white. According to Hoffman future threats may increasingly be characterized as a hybrid mix of traditional and irregular tactics, a decentralized planning and execution, the participation of non-state actors using both simple and complex technologies. Hybrid threats include a number of different modes of warfare, including the standard weapons, irregular tactics and formations, terrorist acts (including violence and coercion) and criminal disorder. Hybrid war can also be multiuzlovymi (conducted and states, and various non-state actors). These multimodal / multiuzlovye actions are carried out either by different departments, or the same. In such conflicts opponents (states, groups of state-sponsored or entities that finance their activities themselves) will use the access to modern military capabilities, including encrypted command systems, portable missiles "ground-to-air" and other modern deadly system; and - promote the organization of protracted guerrilla warfare, which use ambushes, improvised explosive devices and murder. Here is possible to combine high-tech capabilities of such remedies as anti-terrorism and financial cyberwarfare only usually operational and tactical directed and coordinated within the major combat operations to achieve synergies in the physical and psychological dimensions of the conflict. Results can be obtained at all levels of war. It is very strange that Russia is attributed to the development of a hybrid war. Sam Frank Hoffman, in an article published in July 2014, accused Russia, in 2008 in Georgia were applied methods of hybrid war. In earlier work, Hoffman says that "my own definition from the national defense strategy and focuses on modes of conflict opponent. This includes crime ... Many military theorists avoid this element and do not want to deal with something that our culture is sharply rejected and points out that it is law enforcement powers. But the connection between criminal and terrorist organizations worked well, and the growth of drug-terrorist and transnational organizations using smuggling, drugs, human trafficking, extortion, etc., in order to undermine the legitimacy of the local or national governments is obvious enough. Importance of poppy production in Afghanistan reinforces this assessment. In addition, the growing problem of gangs as a form of destructive force in America and in Mexico portends big problems in the future. " Next Hoffman defines a hybrid threat so: any opponent who is both adaptive uses a combination of conventional arms, irregular tactics, terrorism and criminal behavior in the area fighting to achieve their political goals. Indeed, Mexico and Afghanistan are examples of such a hybrid war. For instance, the drug war in Mexico, which in 2006 killed more than 50 thousand. Man, is directly related to internal turf war between drug cartels, corruption in law enforcement and US intervention. As for Afghanistan, there is a kind of combination of local tribes, veterans of the Afghan-Soviet war (Mujahideen), the movement "Taliban" and "Al Qaeda" and securing funding its activities through the production of opium, as well as raising funds from the Islamists, Salafis. Methods of operation - an attack on a NATO base and transport convoys and acts of terror and murder of individuals. At the same response from the US and NATO, as a rule, leading to casualties among civilians, helping to support the local population militants. A reference to the Taliban Hoffman refers to events in Afghanistan and relevant experience that there received the US (since 1979 ). In the book "The conflict in the XXI century. The emergence of hybrid war "(2007), Hoffman writes that analyzed the practices of organizations such as Hamas and" Hezbollah ". Indeed, the US and other experts believe that the Lebanese political organization "Hezbollah" during the conflict with Israel in 2006, the use of hybrid warfare, it also followed the insurgents in Iraq, organizing attacks on US occupation forces. "Hezbollah" is not the structure of the Lebanese army, although the organization has a military wing of small arms. The network structure of the party, based on social and religious ties, was a strong factor in resisting the Israeli attacks. In Iraq, the situation was even more complicated. Against the United States were both Shiite and Sunni militias, as well as former Baathists (supporters of the secular regime of Saddam Hussein). In turn, the "Al-Qaeda" provocations in the country, taking advantage of temporary anarchy. It should be noted that these and other studies indicate an association of Western way of war with the relatively new concept of hybrid threats. In other words, the US, NATO and Israel, on the one hand, the practice of experienced hybrid war, and on the other, to experience for yourself the beauty of hybrid action by the enemy and develop a plan to counter. Evidence of this approach is seen in the fact that the concept of a hybrid war is not only used marines and special operations forces, but also other kinds of armed forces, particularly the Air Force, for which, it would seem, this model of warfare in general is not appropriate. Michael Isherwood in the monograph "Air power for hybrid war", published by the Institute of Mitchell Association of the US Air Force in 2009, gives the following interpretation of a hybrid war: it blurs the distinction between purely conventional and typically irregular war. At the present time, the term has three applications. Hybridity may relate primarily to the combat environment and conditions; secondly, to the strategy and tactics of the enemy; Thirdly, the type of forces that must US create and maintain. In early studies of this phenomenon is often the term used for all of these possibilities. In February 2009, General James Mattis Marines talked about hybrid enemies, and hybrid armed forces, which the United States may also develop to oppose them. When it comes to political goals, hybrid warriors rather take the form of irregular warfare, where participants tend to undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the regime. This will require the US military assistance to strengthen the government's ability to provide social, economic and political needs of its people. It is important to note that the hybrid context of which it is said, is not nothing but a product of globalization, blurs the boundaries of traditional norms and rules. And the engine of globalization were in the first place, the United States. With regard to the sequence of actions, the US military experience in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq was forced to reformat the Joint Staff of the stages of the war. Commanders are now planning operations with zero phase, transforming into a dominant operation, and more - in stability operations and reconstruction. This formula was an important extension of the main stages of the preparation and the main battlefield. A hybrid war is different in that it allows the enemy to engage in several phases in the same time and brings a different set of requirements for the armed forces. Isherwood also notes that potentially can lead hybrid war as North Korea and Iran. He concludes that the complexity of a hybrid war requires military commanders and civilian leaders awareness of their operating environment, or as they say in the Marine Corps, "a sense of space combat." Hybrid enemy can hide among the civilian population, not to be like a typical enemy and use the "e-shelter" to create a global telecommunications market. It should be emphasized that the term "hybrid threats" was used in the last three four-year American reviews on Defense, published in 2006, 2010 and 2014. Consequently, it is well-designed conceptual model which is actually implemented in the military doctrine of the US and its NATO partners. And the armed forces of this country has its use in practice, where necessary, of the Hindu Kush and the Mexican border to the social networks in cyberspace. But somehow blame zinc PS. Of course Russia will be declared guilty because she has recently started to use tools that were previously considered a privilege United States. Thus, Russia has attempted upon the foundations of the modern world revolving around Washington. And of course it will not be forgiven. Actually if during the Olympic War, Russia has pursued a strategy of direct action in the course of the fighting themselves, already during the war in Ukraine, Russia and the United States as, it is a hybrid war, in the spirit of the wars that led the Soviet Union to the United States in various parts of the the world where the various right-wing dictatorships clashes with leftist national liberation movements, almost always figured "soft power" of competing superpowers. In fact, nothing new in the new iteration of hybrid wars no, it's all we have been through, except that the information component of these wars has grown considerably in the light of the explosive growth of information technology. Americans were the first after Iraq realize new opportunities that gave the revolution in telecommunications and incorporated them into their military doctrine, as widely using in the conduct of its wars of aggression, and embedding them in the concept of color revolutions. All other countries, far behind in this component of the state. Crimean operation and subsequent hybrid war in Ukraine showed that Russia is developing in detail some of the components of a modern American military doctrine, so some actions of the parties in support of the junta and the New Russia are so similar, as are based on the same prerequisites alleged modern concept of hybrid warfare. The war in Ukraine, Russia and the United States which are not formally involved, nevertheless, in the framework of the hybrid confrontation causes conflicts in all areas of relations between the US and Russia - on the diplomatic, economic, informational, ideological and military, and Ukraine stands have more reason to which made the application of the projection of military power and other parties.
http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2070233.html
Google Translator