Irregular warfare in American military doctrine.. Has Washington benefited from its experiences?

Washington fought many wars that were described as irregular or asymmetric, such as its war in Afghanistan (Reuters - Archive)

American military doctrine distinguishes between two types of war: conventional war and irregular war. What are the military tasks and operations on which irregular war is based?

Did the United States benefit from its experiences?

Under the title “Joint Warfare,” a publication by the US Department of Defense (Pentagon) describes conventional war as “a violent conflict waged by states or alliances using conventional forces, in an effort to dominate,” and the publication distinguishes between it and “irregular warfare.”

The Pentagon defines irregular warfare as one in which states and non-state actor groups launch campaigns to subjugate or coerce other parties, by adopting new, unusual methods of warfare, either as a basic approach or consistent with conventional warfare.

Irregular warfare operations are not limited to special military operations, but also include social, cultural, linguistic, psychological, technical, and material factors and levels that affect the mechanism of understanding indicators of information, being affected by them, and acting upon them.

Parties to irregular warfare may use unconventional methods, such as guerrilla warfare and sabotage operations, but all of this is within the framework of side efforts to co-opt and control civilians.

In this type of warfare, a less powerful opponent seeks to obstruct or neutralize the military capabilities and advantages of another, more powerful party.

Because they focus on influencing civilians, measures to influence and control the “adversary’s environment” play a prominent role in irregular warfare.

Cyber ​​warfare seeks to employ electronic technical capabilities to achieve specific goals (Shutterstock)

Operations in irregular warfare

Irregular warfare includes unconventional combat methods and operations, such as information operations - or psychological influence operations on the opponent's arena - and cyber warfare, combating networks and activities that threaten the interests and allies of the United States, financing anti-US projects, military coordination operations and security cooperation with local partners, and others. Related to the information environment and gaining civilian support.

US Department of Defense Publication No. GP3-13.2 defines military information operations as “planned operations to transmit selected information and indicators to an adversary’s audiences, to influence their emotions, motives, and objective thinking, and ultimately to influence the behavior of the adversary’s leadership.”

In turn, cyber warfare seeks to employ electronic technical capabilities to achieve specific goals, through offensive and defensive operations to disrupt the opponent's capabilities and preserve local capabilities.

As for operations to combat networks that threaten American interests, they are - as defined by Special Operations Publication GB 3-05 - “activities to prevent, disrupt, or destroy the adversary’s capabilities, supply lines, and logistical arrangements, and prevent their storage, transportation, and use in activities hostile to the interests of the United States.”

While military coordination operations with local partners are defined by publication “GB3-57” as “establishing relations between military forces on the one hand and civilians and local institutions on the other hand, or maintaining, influencing and exploiting them to achieve desired goals.”

While the publication "GP3-20" defines security cooperation as "cooperation between the US Department of Defense and allied security institutions to build relationships that enhance the security interests of the United States, develop the military and security capabilities of allies to participate in multinational operations, and support US forces in times of need."

The US war in Afghanistan was not traditional in the military sense (Reuters - Archive)

Asymmetric warfare and special operations

Official American definitions of asymmetric warfare vary, but it is often described in national security literature as a war between opposing parties with disparate military or strategic forces or tactics, in which unconventional weapons and tactics are used, such as those associated with guerrilla warfare.

Asymmetric warfare is a form of irregular warfare, but because of its connection with and similarity to irregular warfare, the two terms are sometimes used synonymously.

The US Special Operations Command organizes, trains, and equips Special Operations Forces (SOF) to carry out special missions and other tasks that may be determined by the US President or the Secretary of Defense.

These missions require unique employment patterns, tactical techniques, equipment, and training, and are often conducted in hostile, oppositional, or politically sensitive environments.

Therefore, many irregular warfare missions are coordinated and executed through Special Operations Command and its forces.

Conventional armies also play a role in irregular warfare. The “Irregular Warfare” annex to the 2018 US National Defense Strategy, published by the Department of Defense in 2020, set a goal of maintaining basic proficiency in irregular warfare in all US Army units. And not just Special Operations Command.

Special Operations Command also cooperates with partners, allies, and intermilitary forces to accomplish its mission. For example, the US Department of State's Center for Global Engagement works with Special Operations Command as part of its mission to counter media propaganda and disinformation spread by adversaries of the United States.

The US National Defense Act authorizes the Secretary of Defense to spend millions of dollars annually to support irregular warfare operations (Getty)

Financial allocations

Section 1202 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2018 provides that the Secretary of Defense, with the approval of the applicable task force commander, may expend up to $10 million annually between 2018 and 2020 to provide support to foreign allies, irregular forces, groups, or individuals engaged in supporting... Or facilitate ongoing, authorized irregular warfare operations by US Special Operations Forces.

The 2022 law amended Article 1202 to extend it until 2025, while requiring a report on the irregular warfare strategy specified in the 2018 National Defense Strategy Supplement.

While the National Defense Authorization Act for 2024 specified support allocations, raising expenditures to up to $20 million annually.

The main focus of effort in irregular warfare

In an analysis by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy on adopting new strategies for the war on terrorism, retired US Marine Corps General John Allen believes that US forces must understand the cultural and political contexts of their allies and adversaries, and how they affect the forces.

The book “In the Shadow of the Warlords” by Daniel Green also provides a number of recommendations for fighting irregular wars, including training military units in diplomatic skills and directing them to operate in the same region repeatedly to build relationships and consolidate trust with local allies.

While retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel John Nagel, in his introduction to David Galliola’s book “Counterinsurgency Warfare between Theory and Practice,” believes that the priority in irregular wars lies in winning over civilians in the conflict arena.

Therefore, for Lieutenant Colonel Nagel, the key to success in such wars lies in “collecting intelligence information derived from the local population to identify the enemy, and the war is lost when this information is absent.”

The US Army suffered a lot in Vietnam before it was forced to withdraw (Reuters - Archive)

Has America benefited from its experiences?

The United States fought many irregular wars, from Vietnam through Afghanistan and Iraq, to ​​its ongoing confrontation with the “Axis of Resistance” factions in the Middle East, and its analysts and military theorists drew many lessons from these experiences, but it seems that they did not benefit from their lessons. after.

It left Afghanistan after a two-decade war, and rule in Kabul returned to the Taliban movement. It was unable to build the Iraqi state that it had promised during the invasion in 2003, as the matter on the ground turned to powerful factions supported by Iran and threatening American interests in the region.

Despite President Joe Biden's administration's advice to the Israeli occupation government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, before the start of the ground war on the Gaza Strip, not to repeat the mistakes of the US army in Afghanistan and Iraq, Washington has continued its diplomatic and military support for Israel, which is committing daily massacres against the people of Gaza.

In light of the continuation of the Israeli war and the White House’s handling of it, what is happening will reflect on American interests in the entire Middle East region, where feelings of condemnation of Washington’s policy of supporting the occupation at the expense of the blood of children and women are growing.

Source: Al Jazeera