From Chess and Rubik's Cube to Go, Rethinking Irregular Warfare

Introduction

The art of warfare, particularly in the context of irregular warfare (IW), is often compared to a game of chess. This analogy suggests a linear, ordered battleground with clearly defined roles and a set of predictable moves. However, the complexity and non-linearity of IW, particularly in the context of large-scale combat operations (LSCO), demands a shift from this paradigm. A more apt comparison might be drawn from the ancient game of Go or the intricate Rubik's Cube, underscoring the multilayered dynamics and inherent unpredictability of modern warfare.

Chess, Go, and the Rubik's Cube, a Comparative Analysis

Chess is a game of strategic conquest, where every piece has a defined role, and victory is achieved by capturing the king of the opponent. The battlefield in chess is a confined square grid with a clear start and end. On the contrary, Go, an East Asian board game, focuses not on capturing a single figure but on encircling territories and maximizing control over the board. Unlike chess, Go doesn't end when a specific piece is captured; instead, it ends when there are no advantageous moves left.

The Rubik's Cube presents another level of complexity. It's a three-dimensional puzzle, where every action affects multiple outcomes, and to reach the final objective, all facets need to align in perfect harmony. With each twist and turn, the puzzle's configuration changes dramatically, demanding adaptability and constant re-evaluation of strategy.

Historical Perspectives

Adding yet another layer of complexity to the understanding of irregular warfare is the fact that no two IW conflicts are identical. Each conflict is influenced by a unique set of cultural, political, and geographical variables that necessitate a tailored approach. To borrow from our gaming analogies, it is as if each game of Go has its unique board shape and topography, or every Rubik's Cube has a different number of squares on each side.

Drawing from historical context, the IW tactics employed by the French Resistance during World War II vastly differed from the Viet Cong's approach during the Vietnam War. The former was primarily characterized by sabotage and intelligence collection in a state of foreign occupation, while the latter incorporated guerilla tactics and leveraged local terrain and population support in a fight against an external power.

Similarly, in the contemporary landscape, the counter-insurgency operations in Iraq contrast sharply with the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The former scenario unfolded in a largely urban environment with a different socio-political context compared to the latter's rugged terrain and tribal societal structure.

This is especially relevant today as those that like to describe what is happening in Ukraine as a template for what could happen in Taiwan. No two conflicts are the same and unique techniques and strategies will be necessary in each case.

Large Scale Combat Operations and Irregular Warfare

In the context of LSCO, irregular warfare adds another layer of complexity. Consider an urban environment under siege, such as the Battle of Mosul in 2017. Irregular forces can blend into the population, use guerrilla tactics, or exploit local grievances against conventional forces. These scenarios are not a series of linear confrontations (chess); instead, they require controlling and influencing the larger area (Go) while maintaining a dynamic understanding of multiple variables (Rubik's Cube).

Furthermore, integrating irregular warfare into LSCO would require the alignment of multiple domains - land, sea, air, space, and cyber (Rubik's Cube). Any action in one domain will invariably affect the others, necessitating a coordinated, synchronized approach to attain the final objective.

Conclusion

The Department of Defense's reliance on the chess analogy oversimplifies the nature of irregular warfare, potentially leading to strategic missteps. Modern warfare, especially when it involves IW within LSCO, is better compared to a game of Go or a Rubik's Cube, highlighting the importance of flexible strategies, influence over territories, and multidimensional coordination. A shift towards these analogies may provide a more nuanced understanding of irregular warfare, enhancing strategic planning and operational effectiveness in the face of 21st-century threats.