THE HYBRID WARFARE Mantova 22 novembre 2018 The

THE HYBRID WARFARE Mantova, 22 novembre 2018

The Hybrid Warfare is a concept outlining a military operational approach that was first employed in 2007 by a former US Marine Officer, Frank Hoffman, essentially in response to the need to challenge what he saw as engrained beliefs in the US military about the utility of military force in the Post-Cold War environment.

2006 Conflict Israel vs. Hezbollah (when the term Hybrid War became popular) Ø Hezbollah simultaneous combination of: • conventional arsenal • irregular forces & guerrilla tactics • propaganda campaign against Israel • terrorism & criminal activities • external support (Iran, Syria? ) • intelligence, CI, SIGINT • breach the International Law Ø Israel didn’t lose any conventional engagements but lost the campaign with strategic effects (Israeli withdrawal) and UNIFIL 2 deployment. Ø Strategic impact of narrative (conflict of perception).

The Changing Character of Warfare Traditional Forms of Warfare Emerging Forms of Warfare Use of military force lncreasing use of non-military and covert means Targeting of enemy forces Targeting of enemy perceptions, society Direct clash of militaries Remote strikes using stand-off precision weapons, robotic systems, and information attacks Destruction of military personnel and weaponry Destruction of critically military and civilian infrastructure Deterrence by fear of retaliation Deterrence by fear of escalation Winning by defeating the enemy on the battlefield Winning by distrupting the support systems (political, economic, information, etc. ) on which the enemy depends

The Hybrid Warfare: Old Wine in a New Bottle? Ø Since 2006 Lebanon War, the term “hybrid” has dominated the discussion about modern & future warfare, to the point where it entered into the military lexicon and has been adopted by senior military leaders and promoted as a basis for modern strategies. Ø New type of warfare through the modern technologies and comms networks, and combinations of conventional & non-conventional capabilities different from traditional irregular methods. Ø Not a universally accepted definition (often used as a catch-all term for non conventional threats). Ø Different definitions: non-linear war; new generation warfare; 4 th generation warfare, etc. . Ø The methods and tactics are not new. Throughout history, insurgents and nation-states have deployed creative mixes of conventional and irregular capabilities to achieve their goals. Ø Coordinated use of different modes of warfare, both military (use of force) and non-military (irregular tactics, criminal disorder, terrorism, immigration, control resources, etc. ) to achieve ‘synergistic & convergent effects in the physical and psychological dimensions of conflicts.

Historical Examples Ø 1775: American Independence War Ø 2006: Hezbollah vs. Israel Ø 1806: Peninsular (Iberian) War Ø 2008: Georgia Ø 1935: Italy vs. Ethiopia Ø 2014: Ukraine Ø 1965: Vietnam Ø 2011: Syria + Iraq Ø Always the same three different entities of different nature: regular forces; paramilitary formations; non military actors. Ø What is new is: • Worldwide actions (thanks new technologies); • Increasing number of non-military actors; • Operating collectively toward a common objective; • Unique strategic direction.

Hybrid Warfare: Multiple Definitions Ø Mr. Thomas Huber [Compound Warfare: That Fatal Knot]: hybrid warfare is an extension of compound warfare. Ø General George Casey: hybrid warfare is specifically aimed at the Western powers. Ø US military doctrine [U. S. Army Field Manual: The Operations Process]: a hybrid threat is a dynamic combinations of conventional, irregular, terrorist, and criminal capabilities adapting to counter traditional (Western) advantages. Ø British military doctrine: Hybrid warfare is conducted by irregular forces that have access to the more sophisticated weapons and systems normally fielded by regular forces. 7

NATO Hybrid Warfare NATO uses the term to describe “adversaries with the ability to simultaneously employ conventional and non-conventional means adaptively in pursuit of their objectives. ” “Hybrid Warfare is underpinned by comprehensive hybrid strategies based on a broad, complex, adaptive and often highly integrated combination of conventional and unconventional means, overt and covert activities, by military, paramilitary, irregular and civilian actors, which are targeted to achieve (geo)political and strategic objectives. They are directed at an adversary’s vulnerabilities, focused on complicating decision making and conducted across the full DIMEFIL spectrum in order to create ambiguity and denial. Hybrid strategies can be applied by both state and non-state actors, through different models of engagement, which may vary significantly in sophistication and complexity. Adversaries employing hybrid strategies will seek to remain ambiguous, claim pursuit of legitimate goals and aim to keep their activities below a threshold that results in a coordinated response from the international community. This includes avoiding direct military confrontation, if possible; although the use of overt military action as part of a hybrid strategy cannot be discounted”. (PO(2015)0673, Strategy on NATO’s role in countering Hybrid Warfare) DIMEFIL: Diplomatic/Political, Information, Military, Economic, Financial, Intelligence, Legal (leavers of power)

The Hybrid Threat Characteristics Blended tactics: combining conventional military capabilities with guerrilla tactics, asymmetric attacks, and highly mobile standoff engagement systems. Flexible and adaptable structure: organizing paramilitary forces both in conventional & irregular formations. Terrorism: campaigning to proliferate hate and despair and to strike fear in adversaries. Target are cultural icons and symbols to destroy the identities, heritages, and belief systems that oppose their ideologies. Propaganda & information warfare: exploiting global communications networks. Criminal activities: easily connected at international level by sharing resources and competences (also tactics) in convergent activities with terrorist organizations (traffic of immigrants/human beings and drug, movement of weapons and others items, and money recycling) using revenue to fight, recruit, govern and sustain operations. Disregard for International Law: viewing (cynically) international laws as a constraint upon their adversaries that can be exploited.

Challenges Ø No exact formula to apply, due to the complexity of multiple variables involved (lack of conceptual clarity) and continuous evolving of the threat. Ø Developing a culture of innovation that permeate military thinking in a new holistic approach to problems throughout an accurate understanding of the environment in which forces are (should) operating and not restricted to conventional vision of the battlefield. Ø Learning throughout history and experiences of recent operations (e. g. , Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, etc. ). Ø Providing the skills necessary to appreciate the “full spectrum” of the operational environment, due to the expansion of the battlefield beyond the purely military realm, and the growing importance of non-military aspects (Cultural Awareness). Ø Develop a specific mindset enabling operational level of innovation in the use of military force (any threat can be hybrid as long as it is not limited to a single form and dimension of warfare).

The Hybrid Mindset: a New Way of Thinking Ø Focus on the conceptual interaction of four characteristics to develop innovative approaches to create desired operational environments: • understanding strategic context • holistic approach to operations • focus on potential opportunities • embracing the natural complexity of the operational environment. Ø Monitoring the events integrated by multidisciplinary analysis able to provide sufficient anticipation of threats by combining signals from different domains into a single multidisciplinary knowledge base (Comprehensive Approach). Ø Comprehensive Approach: 1) coherent application of national instruments of power; 2) interaction with other actors; and 3) action in all domains.

Recap Ø Any force prepared to address hybrid threats would have to be built upon a solid professional military foundation, but it would also place a premium on the cognitive skills needed to recognize and quickly adapt to the unknown. Ø Hybrid refers not only to the means, but also how these means are employed in a highly coordinated and synchronized fashion to create synergist effects (force multiplier). Ø Take the enemy’s plans into consideration and adapt into a more multidimensional or joint force. Ø Success in hybrid wars requires small unit leaders with decision making skills and tactical cunning to respond to the unknown—and the equipment sets to react or adapt faster than today’s foe. Ø The multi-faceted nature of 21 st century security challenges require to combine political, civilian and military instruments.

Takeaways Ø Hybrid Warfare breaks down the distinction between what is part of the battlefield, by using all available means across the Political, Military, Economic, Social, Infrastructure, and Information spectrum (the boundaries between “regular” and “irregular” warfare blurring). Ø Battlefields are populated with a wide array of actors who are not directly involved in military ops. Non-governmental organizations, criminal groups, local citizens, and other regional powers may all exist and co-mingle in the same space as combat is unfolding. Each has their own goals. Ø Innovation always come with some associated risk (the opportunity may be well worth the risk). Ø Integration of technology into training, professional military education, and unit level training exercises will greatly enhance the overall learning continuum. Hybrid Warfare is not a strategy per se, but merely means an operational (mental) approach

Why it is Important to Study Hybrid Warfare 14