The Dilemma of Definitions, Irregular Warfare and the Challenge of Clarity in the Department of Defense

Introduction

Irregular warfare (IW) has emerged as a major focal point in contemporary military strategy discourse, particularly within the Department of Defense (DoD). However, as the nature of warfare itself evolves in response to geopolitical shifts, technological advances, and ideological flux, the concept of IW has been subjected to continuous redefinition. These repeated alterations, while attempts at better encapsulation of the realities of modern warfare, pose significant challenges to a comprehensive understanding of IW. Moreover, it challenges the credibility of the Department of Defense's cyclic overemphasis on the type of military strategy used to approach contemporary international challenges.

The Department of Defense's Lexical Proliferation

A conspicuous trend within the DoD has been the proclivity to label different forms of warfare, leading to a proliferation of terminologies such as "special warfare," "asymmetric warfare," "unconventional warfare," "irregular warfare," and so on. This seemingly obsessive labeling has a two-fold impact. First, it generates confusion and overlap among these concepts. Secondly, it risks elevating certain MILITARY ACTIVITIES to the level of WARFARE, potentially exacerbating the militarization of foreign policy.

Issues of Conceptual Overlap and Confusion

With multiple warfare labels come inevitable areas of overlap and confusion. For instance, asymmetric warfare – essentially warfare between belligerents whose relative military power or tactics differ significantly – can often incorporate elements of so-called special and irregular warfare, or really what can simply be described as military sensitive activities. This confluence can result in the blurring of boundaries between these warfare types, creating ambiguity and undermining the effective communication of strategic concepts.

The Misdirection of Foreign Policy

The DoD's proclivity for categorizing everything as warfare might be inadvertently contributing to a militarization of foreign policy. As more activities are classified under various forms of "warfare," it could lead to an overemphasis on military solutions at the expense of diplomatic and political approaches. This is particularly consequential in areas such as the "grey zone," where the preferred response often needs to be more nuanced than purely military action.

The Case for Simplification and Clarity

As an alternative to this proliferation of warfare types, terms like "grey zone activities" or "sensitive activities" might provide more accurate and less charged descriptions for some of the activities currently labeled as "warfare." These labels suggest a broader range of approaches and responses, including diplomatic, economic, and information measures, rather than exclusively military action. This could promote a more holistic, inter-agency approach to addressing complex security challenges.

Case in point, the term "irregular warfare" itself has been a source of ongoing debate, with the definition changing multiple times over the past few decades. This variability impedes the development of a clear, consistent understanding of IW and complicates efforts to formulate effective strategies and tactics. Must the DoD make everything "warfare?" Would SOF activities be any different on the ground if we call them sensitive activities or gray zone activities than if we called them Irregular Warfare?

Conclusion

While precise terminology is undoubtedly important in articulating complex strategic concepts, it is equally critical to ensure that this linguistic precision does not breed confusion or unduly militarize foreign policy. The DoD could benefit from reevaluating its tendency to classify all manner of activities as "warfare." By simplifying its lexicon and encouraging a broader understanding of the complexities of modern security challenges, the DoD can foster a more versatile, adaptive, and comprehensive approach to national defense in an ever-evolving global landscape.