By Ann Roosevelt
Hybrid warfare is much discussed but neither defined nor much used in Defense Department planning documents, a government briefing to a House committee said.
Between 2008 and 2010, military officials have told congressional military committees adversaries in Iraq and Afghanistan used hybrid warfare and that there’s an increased likelihood that U.S. forces will encounter an adversary that uses hybrid warfare tactics, techniques, and procedures. Hybrid is usually taken to mean a fusion of conventional, unconventional and irregular forms of warfare.
“However, DoD has not officially defined hybrid warfare at this time and has no plans to do so because DoD does not consider it a new form of warfare,” a Sept. 10 briefing by Government Accountability Office (GAO) officials told members of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.
“Rather, officials from OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense), the Joint Staff, the four military services, and U.S. Joint Forces Command told us that their use of the term hybrid warfare describes the increasing complexity of future conflicts as well as the nature of the threat,” the briefing said.
DoD officials mainly agreed that hybrid warfare encompasses all elements of warfare across the spectrum of conflict.
“Therefore, to define hybrid warfare risks omitting key and unforeseen elements,” GAO said.
Although hybrid warfare is not an official term, GAO found a couple of references to hybrid and hybrid-related concepts in some DoD strategic planning documents–such as the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Report–but not in official doctrine. The idea was to point at an increasingly complex environment for future conflict, thus the need for adaptive U.S. forces, not to “introduce a new form of warfare.”
The military services and U.S. Joint Forces Command also use the term hybrid in some of their strategic planning documents, as a way to frame how each is addressing current and future threats, such as cyber threats. But GAO officials found, “the term full spectrum often is used in addition to or in lieu of hybrid.”
Also, within DoD, GAO researchers found differing descriptions of hybrid warfare. “For example, according to Air Force officials, hybrid warfare is a potent, complex variation of irregular warfare. U.S. Special Operations Command officials, though, do not use the term hybrid warfare, stating that current doctrine on traditional and irregular warfare is sufficient to describe the current and future operational environment,” GAO said.
DoD does, however, officially define guerrilla, irregular, and unconventional warfare.
NATO’s military committee in February defined a hybrid threat: “A hybrid threat is one posed by any current or potential adversary, including state, non-state and terrorists, with the ability, whether demonstrated or likely, to simultaneously employ conventional and non conventional means adaptively, in pursuit of their objectives,” GAO said. As well, NATO is developing doctrine on countering hybrid threat.
GAO was asked to look into the matter by HASC Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Chairwoman Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), Ranking Member Jeff Miller (R-Fla.), and HASC Air Land Forces Chair Adam Smith (D-Wash.). The report was sent to the congressional defense committees and the Secretary of Defense.