Over the past few months, more parties with interest in defense/security concerns have become acquainted with the terminology and context of the emergence of hybrid warfare, which has now gained much traction as the key buzzword explaining Pakistan’s security challenges, particularly with regards to the Indian situation. Literature, discussions and conferences on the subject focus heavily on the complex varying definition of the concept, and also relate how it pertains to their own particular context. Here we examine some of the geo-political situations where we see this phenomenon actually in play, so that the concept can be perceived with clarity as it operates on ground, from a “drone’s-eye view”.
Alternative decision making and analysis models – The Hybrid Warfare Matrix
Developing an analytical practice around this concept, and looking at it as a defence mechanism is the main objective. We want that the subject be incorporated into active policy and not understood as simply a defence analysis trend. The recent efforts by the CCGS think tank to produce a working paper for this purpose, incorporating hybrid warfare awareness into national security strategies is a commendable step in this direction, with further developments to build on this trend still remaining for the coming few years. It is apparent that our position towards defence and security can equally take influence from the climate of international relations, the defence policies of other nations, both allies and those of hostiles; and that these practices have effect on foreign policy and diplomatic relations. The connections between these broad policy subjects can be used to illustrate our general security policy matrix. Within this framework, the question of development and growth is seen from a more politically savvy and threat-aware paradigm. I believe this is the direction in which hybrid warfare study eventually leads us, we become capable of seeing the state as a composite of different sections, each governing a particular aspect of society; and then around these, we can carry out risk mapping of all the possible angles of risk to those social aspects from information relayed to us through the “security matrix”. One of the core lessons of this study is to visualize the combination of conventional and non-conventional attack strategies to coerce or weaken a target nation, based around the MPECI model, which takes a comprehensive overview of Military, Political, Economic, Civilian and Informational strands of attack used by a potential hostile party. It then encourages developing a comprehensive security apparatus which co-ordinates a “Whole of Government” approach to the possible threats, requiring new dynamic co-operation between state bodies, and usage of unconventional, tailor made solutions to deal with new scenarios. If this maps out the “security matrix” clearly, then the perspective gained through this lens basically indicates a much clearer frame of reference to study the “development matrix”, which would consist of internal economic policy, commercial growth, and international trade. Those who are skeptical of the basis upon which conventional political commentators address commercial growth and development, taxation, or international trade, etc. are directed to study and make use of the security based, hybrid risk context. This can allow for an alternative viewpoint on why certain issues of internal development need to be handled one way or another, because the reasoning would be directly linked to national stability and vulnerability from external threats. This would be almost like a national continuity or contingency planning mechanism linked with the function of “disaster management”. Internal strengths and vulnerabilities are mapped along the PMESII model of Political, Military, Economic, Societal, Information and Infrastructure categories. This then forms the basis of a model which can be used to judge international affairs and policy from a perspective that automatically assumes a “Pakistan First” mentality.
Analysing recent Affairs within a HW Geopolitical Concept
The previous article in the series looked at how current affairs can be analysed using the hybrid threat spectrum, and how the model can help put complex strands of daily news reports coming in, along with the private and state use of misinformation but what follows as an extension of that would be to try to understand broader geopolitical trends within this framework also. History is a very important indicator for accurate analysis, and its importance cannot be stressed enough. The aim now is for Pakistan to liberate itself from unwanted, burdensome foreign interactions in the same way that the US is doing, and to try and break free from the cycle of falling under damaging, coercive foreign influence, and history is the key guide in that regard. The context laid out before us through HW study, is that of a history of interventionist behavior going back to the Arab revolt, continuing on through to the US Global War On Terror in the context of which the discipline of HW study, as part of the US Special Operations arsenal [ARSOF] evolved, leading us to the current scenario with the ongoing arc of crisis allowing for further manipulation of events and resources in this region. To form wiser strategic positions on defence and foreign policy, closely looking at these affairs is necessary by all parties concerned. There are key areas of investigation for understanding contemporary geopolitics by tracing the impact of hybrid warfare would roughly be in the form of (a) the US as the originator and future user of HW techniques to advance its foreign policy goals, (b) Russia as the student of US unconventional warfare, using it on a smaller scale to destabilise US-controlled neighbouring nations, (c) China as a student of Russia, using it in smaller ways, and a possible victim of US HW against its Belt Road Initiative, and then (d) the Middle Eastern Nexus of Syria, Iran/Iraq, with Russia acting as a big brother for Damascus/Tehran. The Syrian Civil War, and later the emergence of IS served as a catalyst which brought out the key nature of each player in this game. If we can freeze frame and zoom in on the actions of each party in this equation, strategy can be formed around noticing their tendencies, and adapting to these moves for perceived advantage/ disadvantage.
The purpose of this analysis is not to point fingers and isolate certain players as corrupt or as victims but rather to push forward the discipline and introduce new methods of analyzing geopolitics in a clinical and more methodical/ logic-based style. My personal opinion based on history is clear, that a British/American based interventionist policy has caused a majority of the damage of the 20th century, and around that established a monopoly of oligarchs who shape how modern society runs in all its aspects. Based on that belief it is easy to discourse in an emotional way and rally followers through fear, but then there would be no purpose in research or writing, or using this privilege to imagine a higher course of action. Policy makers have to play the role of enlightened diplomats in our society, and not fall victim to provocations, tribalism, and profanely rooted thought strands. The potential threat of a hybrid attack strategy on any nation can never be greater than its own right to exist and the resolve of the nation as a whole to remain standing. Also, any defensive measures can never outdo the usefulness of good diplomatic ties, and working to resolve issues that cause and provoke hostility in the first place. This type of thinking is the rarest among contemporary politicians and media commentators, who very easily turn small actions or statements into a frenzy of hostile exchanges so let them play and bicker needlessly, and let the men of higher standing take a broader, informed perspective and enforce order in society based on reality and with intent to diffuse conflicts rather than provoke them. An upward trend in this direction could shape a new political age and a new style of cross-border dialogue which transcends the hostile cold-war politics shaped by the new paradigm of “Trumpism” or wall-building fetishism
The US, International Rules, Hybrid Warfare Concept, Joe 2035, and how foreign policy took on a Hybrid Character
The US military leaders responsible for the origination of the study of this discipline, Generals Hoffman and Mattis, et. al. did so with the intention of projecting what the future of modern warfare would look like, terming it the “Joint Operating Environment” for 2035. It speaks of a very dynamically changed future where the hybrid method of warfare and foreign policy becomes the norm. It emphasizes above all, from a literary perspective, that the concept is originally and generally an American one, made to serve their international and defence policy analysis needs. It is strange that they predicted a future like this back in 2003/4, whereas now the disruptive activity of President Trump has made it a near certainty. The activity of the new US President has damaged the rules-based order anchored around multi-lateral organisations to such an extent, that the ripple effect resulted in an international surge of populism and a sudden halt to the 20th century’s project for a global order. The late George Bush Sr’s concept of the new world order based around globalization, international co-operation, and a rules-based system that pivoted around US leadership, is now seen as generally being over. This was the impression I received while watching an interview of David Miliband on CNN’s GPS with Fareed Zakaria way back in June of 2018. The extent of the damage has warped many of the perceptions we held about global progress and development during, say for example from 2008 onwards, or specifically during the Obama-Cameron era of US/ UK leadership. Initially, in our context, the US was concerned about hybrid warfare used by guerillas or militant groups in the Middle East, such as IS. Similarly, Russia was concerned about it from a defensive angle to America, and perhaps also between Israel/ Palestine, and in our context Pakistan/ India.
After the disruptive activity of the post-2016 world, the rise of populism, and the US trade wars against China, etc. gave rise to a change in paradigm, which was the Chinese/Russian/Saudi bloc versus the original flag-bearers of international rules based new world order, i.e. US/UK/Europe. This change basically remapped the geopolitical battle-lines and it is possible that the new considerations of opportunities vs. threats are being made on the basis of the hybrid risk spectrum, and which side of the international alliances a particular nation falls within. Could it be said that Trump did this alone or that the nature of the game has now forever changed? Surely not, as it may be argued that populist sentiment links back to the question of the poor-rich divide and the role of the elites in society. It should be considered that the hybrid threat analysis is not an immediate answer, but rather always a conceptual, worst-case scenario map of our situation. Even the foul-play going on with India, such as the incidents of captured spies, or externally instigated bombing attacks, can change in future, simply with the election of a more moderate ruling party, and the rise of a moderate Indian mentality apart from the evangelical-territorialism of the BJP. The change in leadership towards a more people focused, and less “fundamentalist” style could be all it takes for a boost in international relations, and a revised approach to co-operation around a revised, rules-based order, which gives equal weighting to the significance of the East as previously was given in total to the West. The key example is that of the US and its involvement in Syria in 2014. The trend that will eventually be realized is as stated by DJ’s Chief Editor in his most recent article on this subject, stating that “while a globalized world was a cherished goal as it was thought to bring people together, globalization is increasingly used by one or the other country to dominate the rest of the world through violence”
Hybrid Intervention: The US Involvement in Syria
The four stages of US involvement in Syria could be seen as a usage of hybrid intervention when we look at the calculated manner in which different stages were initiated. The First Phase could potentially include the past 15 years of US policy, a period of involvement in different middle eastern nations on the basis of the Global War on Terror, an initiative which relied heavily on special operations throughout its duration. Technically in this case, it consisted only of the US arming Syrian rebels and providing training, cash and intelligence.
The Second Phase involved the initiation of surveillance missions leading to a US initiated coalition of 10 nations to begin military involvement in Syria, with a declaration that there would be a bombing plan, and a call for authorization to arm rebels fighting Assad. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukaschevich opposed the US intervention against ISIL in Syria without consent of the legitimate government, and stated that this step, in the absence of a UNSC decision would be considered an act of aggression and violation of international law. In December of 2015 [still in Phase 3 at the moment], Operation Timber Sycamore was underway, where the US shipped 994 tonnes of weapons and ammunition to Syrian rebel groups. Upon the election of Trump, he decided to phase out the expensive CIA training program, and shifted towards using air assault campaigns. By September 2016, it was apparent that the pretext of fighting ISIL was being subtly used to damage the Syrian state targets, with an incident taking place involving 2 US fighter planes, 2 Danish planes and a UK drone accidentally attacking a Syrian military base near to the Deir-az-Zaur region, which killed 62 soldiers. This incident was later explained to be an “intelligence/ navigation” mistake. Russia at this point accused the US of assisting ISIL against the Syrian government; aligned with the core foreign policy goal of regime change, and in our methodology an example of using a military strand of attack against a military target [PMESII model], which is the most basic form.
Here commences phase 3.5, unfazed by the Deir-az-Zaur incident and being suspended from using airstrikes by the UNSC, the event of the Douma chemical attack allowed for the commencement of a fourth phase, where the US was allowed to attack the Syrian government directly. Purportedly a government attack on rebels, the date of April 2018 was used to commence another joint British, French and US plan to initiate military strikes against Syria. The crossover of resources and purposes in this scenario show that a hybrid warfare method is being used, and that these cross-purpose movements are based around the geopolitical ties of the parties involved. Just looking at the events of the first day, 9 April 2018, can indicate this to those willing to observe. Here, on 9 April 2018, an airstrike was conducted against Tiyas Military Airbase, where two Israeli fighter jets [F-151] attacked the airfield from Lebanese airspace, firing 8 missiles of which five were intercepted. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that at least 14 were killed, and among the dead were seven Iranian soldiers, according to Al Masdar News.
Hybrid Regional Awareness: Russia’s Involvement
The study published by RAND Corporation cited in the first article of this series back in November last year was correct in stating that the Russian approach to HW is not so much a “doctrine” followed to the letter, but rather a theory which developed after internal studies to try and understand the future of modern warfare. Russian Chief of General Staff, Valery Gerasimov published a study in 2013, detailing perceived future dynamics of warfare and security threats to Russia, similar in purpose to the JOE 2035 study of Mattis/Hoffman. This study showed that Russia has learned of this method of war by studying the US very closely, basing its defence strategy largely in pre-emptive awareness of what the US may do next. The core element of this method is to avoid overt military action against political targets until absolutely justified in the eyes of the world. Leaving it as the final intended step in the plan, the first volleys of a US attack come from the installment of a political opposition through state propaganda, the internet, and social media, followed by proxy NGOs who align with US interests. After instilling political dissent, separatism and social strife, the legitimate government has increasing difficulty maintaining order, at which point special operations and private outfits can be deployed to bring it completely out of function. Provoking chaos in this way opens the door for Phase 2, which is deploying political and economic sanctions, based on instability of the nation in question; dissent is stimulated at all stages of the operation. Phase 3 is when the military arrives to “pacify” the situation, and a new, US friendly government is ready to be installed.
The procedure is almost something to be admired, how strategic and naturally the steps progress, it is like watching an old, war-time documentary on military intelligence operations, where they guide the viewer step-by-step through the procedures involved in writing a counter-intelligence report. The sequence is that of Psy-Ops, Color Revolution, and Intervention, which has been covered in depth through Andrew Korybko’s work on this subject, for which we made use of the NDU report published after their conference on this subject in 2018. Gerasimov was the main defence thinker as an outsider to this system, who identified this trend and then translated it for defensive purposes within his own country. This is useful for all who are not under the protective wing of US allegiance, and consists of learning the method and revising internal policy in light of perceived threats. The previous statement may fly past the attention of many, but I suggest those with decision making capability should re-visit and consider the project that needs to be undertaken if Pakistan, or any other country in the developing world wants to keep itself safe from “imperial entanglements”. Russia’s awareness of this phenomenon enabled it to influence affairs in the Ukraine away from US influence, which is a strong indicator of their border defence capabilities, like it or not. Beyond this, they were able to demonstrate watchful involvement in Syria throughout the US intervention operation, and found intelligence indicating that an incident would be triggered in Douma to serve as a false-flag pretext to US military intervention. One has to stop and wonder at the US persistence in foreign intervention operations, if it can’t be justified one way, they will force through until an opening is created.
It happens that on 13 March 2018, Gerasimov said that the military had “reliable intelligence” that suggested the rebels holding Eastern Ghouta, along with the White Helmet activists were preparing to stage and film a chemical weapons attack against civilians, which the government would then blame on the Syrian forces and use it as a pretext to bomb government quarters in Damascus. Rebel groups in Syria had long been under Russian observation, wary that they would be preparing toxic substances and weapons in order to implicate the Syria government. It is held that a series of fake news reports was promulgated via the notorious White Helmet group, a faction with ties to other groups based in the US/UK, regarding the use of chemical agents by government forces. Further sources within Syria and in Russia identified that this type of fake news or false flag campaign is usually strategically organized around the time when Syria was making significant gains against terror groups. This latest wave of accusations was given near to the time where the Syrian Army pushed to liberate the remaining militant occupied settlements in the Damascus suburb of Eastern Ghouta; the militants had agreed to leave the enclave, and all militant held settlements were liberated on March 31. Russian officials stated that dissident factions who wanted to avoid political settlement in Syria capitalized on the situation to aggravate tensions. The US State department was typically quick to point fingers, and also directed blame on Russia as well as Iran, blaming them for supporting the Assad regime. In hindsight, it could easily be seen as a diversion of blame in context of Russia identifying the US for planning this incident as part of their intervention strategy in the first place. When asked to verify their sources US officials admitted they were unable to independently verify any information about the incident and had to rely only on reports made by rebel-linked sources which lends credibility to the Russian assessment of the situation.
Reflection on long term trends/ Eurasian Century
When IS was on the decline near 2016, after months of aerial strikes by Russia/US, we saw them carry out a string of suicide bombing and other such attacks both at home and abroad. This was recognized by global commentators as a last-ditch effort to strive to remain significant and retain a place in the minds of the public. It could be viewed that the protracted hybrid warfare by the Western powers as per this discussion also comes as a type of last-minute effort to remain relevant, in light of the changing power dynamics away from the US controlled global rules-based order, and towards the multi-polar dynamics of the new “Indo Pacific Century”. This change is based around the core multinational infrastructure projects of the BRI and so forth, contrasted with the collapse of faith in US leadership, and Trump’s own sabotage of the US influence in the international organisations who supported its power in this global order for so long. Defense Minister Hatami told a security conference in Moscow that unless the Muslim nations of the region are able to overcome their differences they will be victimized. The current transition towards multipolarity provides a perfect opportunity to build security and development in collaborative fashion while the West is tending to its own borders. He said, “For the first time in four centuries, changes are not dependent on the West’s will only”. The most important result of the change, he describes, will be the transition of political and economic power from the Western hemisphere to the Eastern, from the Atlantic to East Asia. He said the change will seriously affect “the region of Western Asia, which has been called the Middle East by mistake for quite some time.” Anticipated growth of the Muslim nations of the region in light of political and economic power at their disposal is seen as cause for concern by nations such as the US. As part of a Hybrid Warfare hypothesis, analyzing US policy towards the Mid-East, the situation here is quite clearly visible, Hatami states, this is why they take much effort to sow discord and pit countries against each other”. Further, he stated that Washington had been bringing trouble into the Middle East for decades and that the rise of the IS was just one element of this planned containment/ regression of Muslim nations, alluding to the poor performance of the US led anti-IS coalition before 2015 and Russia’s intervention as evidence of this plan.
From this perspective, the origin of the terror group itself was part of a US led “game of controlled chaos” to manage their activity from afar as part of a HW plan where intervening in the activities of IS was a calculated move. According to this view, the HW strategy will continue in this part of the world with the US expected to manipulate the situation and fill the vacuum left after the defeat of IS by instigating conflict among the groups remaining. In keeping with the general thesis of this article/ report, it seems that the US requires terrorist activity to persist as a pretext for its interventionist goals and using forms of espionage such as false flag, proxy-initiated attacks in order to implicate the target state would fit right in to any well designed HW strategy. Media statements from Iranian officials portray the incident as an attempt to play “controlled chaos” among Muslim nations. The entire IS-Daesh episode is seen as another example of the Brezinski-era “Arc of Crisis” methodology, a continuation of the colonial era “Divide and Rule” philosophy, requiring manipulation of domestic dissidents to spark conflict and prevent the target state from effective governance. This was the foreign policy strategy that saw the rise of clerical-fundamentalism in Iran under Khomeini, the Iran/Iraq war, the rise of Islamist political activity in Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood resulting in the assassination of Anwar Sadat. The period as a whole from the Reagan administration until now can be seen as a protracted “hybrid war” to destabilise the Middle East and to weaken it at the structural foundations across the range of PMESII target priorities. As paraphrased from the article of the Chief Editor, it is common knowledge that the US intervention in Iraq, based on false news- that toppled Saddam Hussein and his Sunni-dominated army, inevitably created ISIS to fight against Iranian Shia militants, by utilizing the dismembered Sunni pool of the former Iraqi army.
Conclusion
Need for Pan-Islamic Security Infrastructure Against Hybrid Intervention Strategies
Controlled chaos, an arc of crisis, and now hybrid warfare are trends that have typified Middle Eastern geopolitics throughout the last century. If liberty, sovereignty and freedom are core Western values, why should the Middle East be prevented from adapting to these values? This is the central concern, the prospect of achieving sovereignty and freedom from meddling, intervention, coercion and so on. To be frank, and many among the veterans or former politicians from the Bush/Obama periods may have reached the same conclusion that a stable, peaceful and moderate Middle East is one which frees itself from need for US intervention to deal with internal, tribal or sectarian grievances. Everything we have discussed so far in this series, as pertains to HW terminology, is crucially important for Pakistan and its long-term sustainability from infiltration, but it is multiple times more significant for the Middle East as a whole. According to Iranian Defense Minister Amir Hatami, giving a speech in Moscow, he describes that the “Middle East needs to block such meddling with a new security architecture based on mutual dependence”, It seems apparent that the Middle East is indeed the melting pot where all manner of HW strategies, UW operations, rogue actors and coercion methods can be seen at play at all times. It is a region in turmoil today because several key players like Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran are in constant confrontation with one another, each of whom share certain extreme tendencies and ideological governance concepts which can be very easily manipulated to foment discord.
The formation and effective deployment of this proposed new middle eastern security architecture will be the final construct needed in place to prevent the continuation of further interference and instigation of militancy by the US/ Allies. If no such collaboration among the Muslim nations takes place it is inevitable that the need for further terrorism as a pretext to involvement will be generated and create stagnation in the Middle East during the period of their biggest opportunity for development, as part of the Eurasian century. The methods provided according to the resources used for this brief 3-article series included concepts such as the “Whole of Government” approach to combating externally planned attacks. What seems to be the logical synthesis of these recommendations is to indeed a) carry out a comprehensive, state led survey, with partnership of key regional stakeholders towards mapping regional vulnerabilities, which can be used to identify the operational priorities for what follows in b), a co-ordination of security institutions and their efforts towards identification and mitigation of key risks from outside attempts to create destabilization.
That is with regards to the defensive side of the system. On the offensive side, these countries are best recommended to take a page out of the Russian playbook and to readjust their foreign policy in line with the hybrid method as a source of defensive capability. This includes a list of strategic activities designed to mirror the US in usage of hybrid methods. Activity 1 includes “Capturing Territory with Minimum Use of Force”, consisting of deploying special operations forces, working in sync with information campaigns and usage of proxies. Activity 2 includes “Creating Pretexts for Conventional Military Action”, which is basically the entire focus of hybrid warfare and espionage, involving making use of Information Operations, Cyber Warfare, Proxies, Economic Influence, traditional espionage in the form of bribery, blackmail or extortion, and lastly, Political Influence, through usage of traditional diplomacy and showing signs of collusion. Russia utilized each of these methods leading to a bloodless takeover of Crimea. As the “hybrid student” of US methods, they have translated the approach quite literally with devastating effectiveness. It is not recommended that smaller South Asian countries all begin to adapt these tactics on whichever neighboring country seems to tilt their allegiance towards America, however, making use of the strategic model in planning defensive capacity is a necessary activity to protect against hybrid intervention. Beyond that level of preparation, in terms of offensive capabilities, is up to their defense personnel to formulate.
End Notes
“Russia says U.S. plans to strike Damascus, pledges military response”, Reuters. 13 March 2018
Hybrid warfare strategic coercion against Pakistan
Operation Timber Sycamore
JOE 2035 Study
https://chinadailymail.com/2019/02/16/us-india-hybrid-war-against-china-pakistan/
CCGS think tank
CNN’s GPS with Fareed Zakaria
Ikram Sehgal, The Daily Times, 15 Feb 2019. “Hybrid Warfare- Strategic Coercion Against Pakistan”
RAND Corporation
Andrew Korybko’s work
Defense Minister Hatami
