Presentation at European Military Academy Commandants Seminar (EMACS) 16–18
October 2013, Vilnius
Hybrid Warfare in Future Conflicts
Deividas Šlekys
Forecasting is a treacherous enterprise. Especially when talking about future conflicts
and wars. It is a tradition to say that when facing new emergency, every military tries to replay
its last war. It is hard to criticize such an approach for several reasons. Military is and for
foreseeable future would be run by the human beings and we are keen in our daily lives to
apply familiar, routine practices, which helped to solve issues in the past. So why should
somebody expect that military men and women should be somehow different. They are also
faulty, fragile, and sinful as the rest of us.
We are also used to hear the expression that we should learn from our mistakes and
history is one of the main way’s to do that. Military history probably is one the most popular
disciplines, at least if we consider the most popular titles and journal read by the people at
large. In such case, many, not only military, are familiarizing with historical narratives of the
military victories and defeats in order to be successful in the future. However, the same history
shows, that we are notoriously bad at learning from mistakes of the past. So in military case,
all this process is such: after each military campaign there will be detailed, sometimes official
history, where all steps of some particular events will be analysed in miniscule detail, the
mistakes, flaws will be identified, which will lead to recommendations on force structure,
tactical, operational planning, etc. After such enterprise, many with confidence probably will
say, that next time everything will go according to the plan, because historical analysis helped
to fix problematic issues. Still, mistakes happens, defeats and loss of lives occurs and the
question remains, why?
The search for the answer to this question leads us to the essence. It leads to the question
- what is war? The question, to which for generations we do not get an answer. Let’s take an
example. Take a look to the military conflicts of the resent past around the globe: fast and
swift operation Desert Storm, debacle in Mogadishu, atrocities in Srebrenica, Ruanda; civil
wars in Sierra Leone, Angola, Congo or recent one in Syria; Kosovo and Libya; 9/11 and
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan with conventional and insurgency phases, and the list
doesn’t stop there. In some of these conflicts highly sophisticated weaponry were used
(drones, precise munitions, etc.), in others IED’s and suicidal attacks were the main weapons
and in others fighting was done by using Kalashnikov’s, machetes’ or by conducting
systematic rape, genocide. Such a variety, how to deal with it? To make things even more
1
Presentation at European Military Academy Commandants Seminar (EMACS) 16–18
October 2013, Vilnius
complicated, we provide one label for all this variety – we call it “war”. In this way genocide
in Ruanda, insurgency in Iraq and Russian-Georgian conflict is the faces of the same
phenomenon – war.
That’s where we can see the relevance of C. von Clausewitz, whose writings for me still
remains the best guide into the realm of war. No matter where and how these conflicts are
fought, they all have some common ground: in all of them one belligerent side tries to enforce
its will on another and does it by bloodshed. The nature of war is not changing, its character
– does. A question for all of you. What type of war will be dominant in the future? Will be all
wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, or maybe like ongoing civil war in Congo, or like first phase
of war in Iraq 2003. The answer to this question is not an easy one, because scholars, experts,
politicians and officers all around the world are divided into at least three different schools or
camps and each of them are vigorously advocating it’s supremacy over other two.
So, the question is, which form of warfare will be dominant in the future and which is
worth it of investment into military training, procurement. The answer is – not one of them.
These forms of warfare will co-exist alongside each other, because all of them are parts of the
same phenomenon – war. It will be that way, because it always was. That is where we should
turn to the history again. Conventional way of war always was shadowed by unconventional.
We tend to forget that wars are not only battles and manoeuvres. There are many types and
forms of fighting. We also tend to forget, that Europeans fought not only in Europe, or
Americas. The recent scholarship of Western military historians remembers us about colonial
wars. After reading this literature it is hard to accept an argument that what happened in Bosnia
or Ruanda is some unique, sui generis events in history. Acts of Western armies in colonies
reveals dark, inconvenient, un-gentlemen side of war which we tended to forget. Wars always
was multi-dimensional phenomena, we just like to ignore it. Clausewitz wrote, that each
historical period has its own character of war based on social, cultural, economic changes.
However, each of this new character was also different combination of the various fighting
forms. In other words, the changing ways of cooking does not change the ingredients in the
recipe.
The task for all concerned sides is one – do not forget this multi-dimensionality of war.
It means, we should be teaching, discussing, preparing, and training for all these different
types of fighting. Scholars are doing their best to keep this afloat by proposing different names
and concepts, which basically explains the same phenomenon. You can find such labels, like:
three block war, 4th generation war, war amongst the people, compound war, and hybrid war.
2
Presentation at European Military Academy Commandants Seminar (EMACS) 16–18
October 2013, Vilnius
In this case, the term “hybrid” is probably the best, because it captures the essence of warfare
– mixture of different approaches to war.
However, there is one vital area, where important changes are happening. Because of
all technological advancements, increasing role of media the perception of what is war is
changing rapidly, and what is even more important – the number of audiences is extrapolating.
Who is the audience in contemporary war, who’s will we have to conquer. Who is the enemy,
what is the victory? Can we even use these terms anymore. Take for example ISAF mission
in Afghanistan. Who was the enemy there? Taliban? We were trying to win hearts and mind
of whom? Afghani people, who are network of different tribes, subtribes, drug dealers. Were
we fighting Taliban, or actually participating in long standing tribal rivalries. We came with
world wide perspective, to create stabile government and to eradicate Taliban, Al Qaeda, but
people there did not care about global, their cared about local issues. However, it was only
one part of the audience – there also is official government of Afghanistan with its provincial
governors. International community, NGO’s, media, allies are also audiences. Likewise,
potential rivals and bad guys, like Al Qaeda also is on the receiving end. Finally, last, but not
least, the audiences of our own countries - our societies. In the middle of all this all the time
was, is and will be not high military brass, but junior officers, NCO’s, enlisted men and
women. It is they, who must act in such manner which should accommodate the needs of all
these audiences. But how can we define the victory in such context. Did we achieved it in
Afghanistan? I really have serious doubts on that account, despite the brave and heroic deeds
of individual soldiers and officers. After all victory is a conceptual agreement of two
belligerent sides. It is enough to look into history of all peace treaties and it will be clear that
victorious side always had to compromise in order to get signature of the defeated. The loser
has his voice in all this, and it is he, who says: it is over when I say is over. Contemporary
multiplicity of audiences blurs all of it even more.
Afghanistan is not unique. Ongoing civil war in Syria is even more complex. No matter,
how and what form of fighting will be dominant in the future, this maze of audiences will
remain. Today and in the future soldiers won’t have a luxury just to fight, because even pure
military action for different audiences will mean different things. There won’t be such thing
as “missions other than war”, because for someone it will be a war. It is hard to imagine
situation, when military solution paves the way to a political conclusion. In our times all of it
is intertwined down to lowest level. Therefore, soldiers and officers in future will be required
to have not only military skills for a wide range fighting, but also skills to accommodate
different audiences. They will be required to have proficiency in economy, law, anthropology,
3
Presentation at European Military Academy Commandants Seminar (EMACS) 16–18
October 2013, Vilnius
languages, cultural studies and most important – in political studies. All this is not new. During
the last decade number of subjects of these disciplines increased in military educational
institutions. However, in many instances it was considered as temporary change, because of
the operational needs, but more permanent solutions are required.
However, all these changes creates a challenge for democratic states. We all have a
tradition of civilian oversight of the military. Civilian control has clear rules, procedures,
traditions, where basically only military brass is participating in the political decision making
processes. But contemporary military conflicts, where junior officers have to take decisions
with far reaching consequences, demands some adjustment. How much military should
participate in the decision making processes. How much they should be versed in political
subtleties. All of this, to my mind requires change, but in order to make adjustments you need
a healthy reach into civilian world.
Therefore, military educational institutions, like military academies, should not only
reconsider their military training and educational programmes. They also should start to
consider change of their institutional profiles. As was mentioned, one of the most important
audiences is our fellow countrymen. In order to support you, he need to understand how wars
are fought today. There cannot be nothing more worse, than a civilian who looks at military’s
activities through the lenses of decades old image of war. Military academies should look for
new ways and forms to engage more actively with civilians, with civil higher education
institutions. It does not mean, that civilians should move into direction of the military. I don’t
encouraging or preaching for some form of militarism. What I am suggesting, is the creation
of more viable system of communication and cooperation between military and its civilian
counterparts. Because it is very risky and dangerous from military side to take home support
for granted.
In conclusion to sum up of what was said, few points should be emphasized. First, wars
at the present and in the future will be as they always were - complex, hybrid. It is we, who
have to change. To change our view, or to be more precisely to look better into the history of
warfare: there is not only battles, cavalry attacks, tanks, battleships and strategic bombers.
Second, this changing character demands an officer, who is capable to work with different
audiences simultaneously and that requires to change substantially curriculum at the military
educational institutions. Third, one of the main audience is that which stays at home. It should
have at least some glimpse, understanding of contemporary conflict, otherwise you may find
yourself in a situation where your heroic deeds and military proves will be considered as
defeat.
4
Presentation at European Military Academy Commandants Seminar (EMACS) 16–18
October 2013, Vilnius
5