Complexities of Contemporary Warfare: Beyond the Labels of Hybrid Warfare and 5th Generation Warfare
Exploring the Limitations of Hybrid Warfare and 5th Generation Warfare Narratives
Once again, the use of the term "Hybrid" as a framework for understanding warfare has re-surfaced within academic circles. The latest contribution, "Towards a typology of non-state actors in 'hybrid warfare': proxy, auxiliary, surrogate, and affiliated forces" by Vladimir Rauta from the University of Reading, has sparked renewed discussion (source: Rauta (2020)).
Vladimir Rauta (2020) Towards a typology of non-state actors in ‘hybrid warfare’: proxy, auxiliary, surrogate and affiliated forces, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 33:6, 868-887, DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2019.1656600
Note, as I prepare to write my critique, I sincerely hope that I have not missed Rauta’s (2020) key point regarding the problem of typology – that of the actor typology problem in hybrid warfare research. I intend to engage with his arguments and delve into the topic with the aim to provide a thoughtful critique that adds value to the ongoing discourse surrounding this subject.
Bottom Line Up Front:
Contrary to the concept of an actor typology problem in hybrid warfare research that Rauta (2020) argued, my contention is that the core of the issue extends beyond a simple typology challenge. The use of terms like "hybrid warfare," "asymmetric warfare," or "5th Generation Warfare" exerts a confining influence on foresight analysis, as these terms rely on heuristics and mnemonics, thereby limiting our capacity to comprehend the intricacies of modern conflicts comprehensively. In order to develop a more profound understanding of contemporary warfare, we must transcend these constrained perspectives and adopt a more expansive and nuanced approach.
To those familiar with my academic perspective, as well as my extensive practical experience serving in warzones spanning over ten years, it should come as no surprise that I am compelled to respond to the prevailing trend surrounding the use of terms like "hybrid warfare" and "5th generation warfare."
To commence, it is my strong belief that placing any reliance on terms such as "hybrid warfare" and "5th generation warfare (5GW)" can steer us in the wrong direction, and more significantly, hinder the establishment of a robust methodological foundation. Despite the appeal and endorsement of academicians and defense leaders promoting the use of terms like "5th generation warfare" and "hybrid warfare" a rigorous and comprehensive examination of the methodological underpinnings (or absence thereof) behind these concepts becomes indispensable in gaining a profound understanding of their essence.
Furthermore, it is crucial to scrutinize the methodological underpinnings of these terms. Despite their apparent appeal and promise of conceptual clarity, these terms lack a robust analytic methodology to effectively examine the intricate behavioral intricacies of warfare within the context of complex systems and interdependencies of modern conflicts.
In contrast, complexity science offers a different approach. By acknowledging the nonlinear dynamics, emergent behaviors, and interconnectedness inherent in warfare, we can better grasp the multifaceted nature of contemporary conflicts. Complexity science provides a framework for analyzing the complex adaptive systems at play, allowing us to develop more nuanced and comprehensive strategies.
Rather than relying on the limiting heuristics and mnemonics associated with terms like "hybrid warfare," "asymmetric warfare," or "5th generation warfare," we should embrace methodologies grounded in complexity science in order to understand the unpredictable nature of warfare, and anticipate future trends. (Emphasis added on future)
Note: I fully acknowledge that Ruata (2020) did not use the term "5th Generation Warfare” but rather he used “hybrid warfare" – however -- the same argument holds true for those who adamantly proclaim, "It's 5th generation warfare!" It’s not.
The use of the term and the underlying 5GW theory, despite all the words to suggest it is “magic; tactics include actions that would ‘target’ your mind; it’s asymmetric and decentralized” MaloneSubstack it continues to suggest a reductionist framing that is a rational, pseudo-scientific construct that discounts alternative social paradigms (such as a Sino-Marxist frame within Mao, a political theory, a Marxist revision coupled with Chinese culture and history or the use of a ‘Gerasimov Doctrine’ and Russian Non-Linear War – adding — The proponents of Hybrid/5GW would find modern Western warfare theories to be paradoxical, as these theories underlie the principles of Clausewitz, Machiavelli, Newton, Scharnhorst, and Bacon.
What Do the Chinese Call It? Warfare Perspectives from China
It is crucial to acknowledge that our adversaries, such as China, have adopted a distinct approach to framing warfare. They have developed their own ways of thinking about conflict, which differ significantly from the Western perspective. Within the realm of Chinese strategic thought, warfare is often framed in terms of inherent characteristics and the quest for hidden potential - emphasizing that the challenge at hand extends beyond a mere typology
issue. Understanding these frames and this form of conceptualization of future conflicts is of paramount importance.
In this regard, "A Treatise on Efficacy: Between Western and Chinese Thinking" by François Jullien provides valuable insights. Jullien, a notable French philosopher and sinologist, delves into the differences between Western and Chinese approaches to various aspects of life, including warfare. It delves into the intricate interplay between Western and Chinese thinking, shedding light on how these different frameworks shape our understanding of warfare and the strategies employed.
In this treatise, Jullien explores the contrasting perspectives on efficacy and action in Western and Chinese philosophical traditions. It is a must read. Jullien, F., & Lloyd, J. (2004). A Treatise on Efficacy: Between Western and Chinese Thinking. University of Hawai’i Press. Chinese Warfare Theory
Non-Action Warfare
The actor typology problem refers to the challenge of categorizing and classifying the diverse range of actors involved in modern conflicts – but as I stated – our adversaries are framing warfare – in different ways – such as the theory on non-action.
When examining the characteristics of warfare it is worthwhile to look to the behavior or characteristic of ‘non-action’. For more on this one can turn to an essential reference — the influential work of Lao Tzu in the Tao Te Ching.
Lao Tzu's philosophy centers around the principle of Wu Wei, often translated as "non-action" or "effortless action." This concept emphasizes aligning with the natural flow of events, rather than exerting force or imposing one's will. Kaplan (2005) stated “A key concept of Tao Te Ching is wei wu wei, which means “without action.” This means doing something so naturally, so effortlessly, that it almost appears to be non-action. Wu wei doesn’t really mean non-action, but rather action in accord with Nature.” (Kaplan (2005) Kaplan: Still Relevant after 2500 Years: The Art of War and Tao Te Ching Lao Tzu's teachings offer profound insights into the power of stillness, non-interference, and harmonious engagement with the world. Laozi. (1997). Tao Te Ching. Shambhala Publications. Lao Tzu. (2007). Tao Te Ching.
Additional the work of Lao Tzu and that of Leo Tolstoy have an interesting nexus worth reading more about. Tolstoy: Non-Activity The interplay between the philosophies of Lao Tzu and Leo Tolstoy yields a captivating convergence, highlighting the potential influence of Eastern wisdom on Tolstoy's thoughts and writings. Exploring this intriguing nexus provides valuable insights into the deeper dimensions of their respective works and how they both influence warfare theory and practice.
Moreover, it is crucial to understand the motivations, potential - specifically the potential changes and capabilities within the systems of warfare, and dynamics of these actors to effectively analyze this form of conflict. Here the emphasis is on the word potential.
Emphasizing the dynamics of warfare over the concept of hybridity allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the evolving nature of conflicts, transcending the limitations imposed by a narrow focus on hybrid warfare.
By adopting complexity sciences methodologies, we can explore the emergent properties and complex relationships that inform a foresight scenario and also characterize modern warfare. This perspective recognizes that actors within dynamic systems of warfare are not static entities but rather adaptive and interconnected agents within a complex system.
Beyond Mnemonics: Beyond Biological Metaphors
A little more on the topic of mnemonics and metaphors. The analogies drawn and the utilization of associated mnemonics, metaphors - and heuristics in the study of warfare presents limitations – for example the so-called biological evolutionary theory of warfare here -- from 2nd to 3rd, 4th, and 5th Generation Warfare - where this ‘theory’ presumes a biological evolutionary trajectory vice a nonlinear behavioral set of characteristics and – the word “hybrid” - within the study of warfare, as well as the use of certain terms in this context, lack explicit methodological foundations. These analogies and terms tend to function more as descriptive metaphors rather than being supported by well-established methodologies.
Nonlinear Dynamics
Where are the characteristics of nonlinearity?
I believe they lie within the realm of nonlinear dynamics, which allows us to analyze the emergent properties, feedback loops, and adaptive behaviors that characterize the ever-evolving nature of warfare today.
Nonlinear dynamics provides a framework for understanding complex systems and their behaviors, emphasizing the interconnectedness and interdependencies among various elements. In the context of warfare, this perspective acknowledges the dynamic and nonlinear nature of conflicts, where small changes can have disproportionate effects and outcomes can emerge unpredictably.
By applying the principles of nonlinear dynamics, we can better grasp the complexity of modern warfare, including the interactions between actors, the amplification of effects, and the nonlinearity of causality. It enables us to explore the intricate dynamics of warfare, such as the diffusion of influence, the nonlinear progression of events, and the adaptive strategies employed by different actors.
By incorporating the principles of nonlinear dynamics into our analysis of warfare, we can uncover deeper insights into the underlying mechanisms, patterns, and behaviors that shape the course of conflicts. This approach enables us to adapt and respond effectively to the ever-changing landscape of warfare, enhancing our capacity to develop foresight and devise robust strategies.
Closing Comment
By rejecting the constraining and limiting heuristic of the 'hybrid' mnemonic, and instead embracing a nonlinear framework that acknowledges the interdependencies and behavioral intricacies within warfare systems of systems, we can more comprehensively account for these elements and develop strategies and foresight that transcend the confines of traditional categorizations.
Thank you. I trust that you have found these insights to be of value and relevance in our warfare discourse. To support the ongoing exploration of these ideas, consider subscribing to stay updated on future articles and contributing to further research through donations. Your interest and support are greatly appreciated.