Official references to “hybrid warfare” continue to abound in Pakistan's policy and media landscape. Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi was quoted this week as saying that “enemies of Pakistan are bound to fail in a hybrid war against the country”.
The Foreign Minister further elaborated the current government's stance on the divides in society which serve as vectors of attack in this alleged form of warfare. Enemies, he noted, are “creating unrest through the religious and linguistic divide.”
It would be instructive to note where this concept became popular in contemporary security parlance – the annexation of the Crimean peninsula, which occurred despite Ukraine's efforts to hold on to that territory. The multiple means deployed by Russia in gaining control of that territory are being described in many sources as “hybrid warfare”.
The term, as it is now used, appears to refer to a combination of several components in pursuit of overall grand-strategic goals. This includes conventional, irregular, political, media, cyber and terrorist components. In that sense, it is similar to older – even ancient – imaginings of warfare and politics. However, it is clear that a number of states in this multipolar world are particularly concerned by the possibility of such means of conflict being deployed by non-state actors, in addition to other states.
Western countries that are part of NATO have been referring repeatedly to Russian and Chinese capabilities in hybrid warfare. Just recently, a NATO moot in London noted the need to counter perceived new threats:
“Emerging technologies like hypersonic missiles and quantum computing are changing the threat landscape, the defense secretary said, urging that NATO must to understand the challenges and adapt accordingly.”
Some commentators have pointed out that the combination of regular and irregular methods of warfare is not unique to Russia, China or other countries which have been in antagonism with Western countries. Moreover, there is a long history of the use of methods which could be termed “hybrid warfare” by Western countries themselves – both in building colonial empires and later in fighting the rise of communism in the Cold War.
The important points to note here are two.
Firstly, that hybrid warfare as it is commonly described has existed in some way from the ancient era when Sun Tzu wrote his treatise on conflict; all the way to Russia's highly developed form of military deception in the 20th century and beyond, the famous “Maskirovka”. Therefore, this phenomenon must not be allowed to assume the characteristics of a panic just because non-state actors may be capable of deploying its methods.
Secondly, in an era where democracy all over the world is already under threat from new right-wing forces and nationalist movements which define their own particular goals in national security terms, it is important to avoid conflating dissent and free expression with “hybrid warfare”. It would be a very dangerous situation, indeed, if the activities of journalists, human rights activists, political forces and social movements are deliberately targeted by painting them as part of an “enemy strategy”. In any case, even if such a strategy is deployed against a state, a flourishing and fearless civil society is one of the best possible defenses possible against subversion by malignant forces.
In Pakistan, we already run that risk due to the profligate use of the terms “hybrid warfare” and our local take on it, which is being referred to as “fifth generation warfare”. A country that starts seeing intelligent minds and critical thinkers as vectors of attack eventually becomes its own worst enemy.
The Foreign Minister further elaborated the current government's stance on the divides in society which serve as vectors of attack in this alleged form of warfare. Enemies, he noted, are “creating unrest through the religious and linguistic divide.”
It would be instructive to note where this concept became popular in contemporary security parlance – the annexation of the Crimean peninsula, which occurred despite Ukraine's efforts to hold on to that territory. The multiple means deployed by Russia in gaining control of that territory are being described in many sources as “hybrid warfare”.
The term, as it is now used, appears to refer to a combination of several components in pursuit of overall grand-strategic goals. This includes conventional, irregular, political, media, cyber and terrorist components. In that sense, it is similar to older – even ancient – imaginings of warfare and politics. However, it is clear that a number of states in this multipolar world are particularly concerned by the possibility of such means of conflict being deployed by non-state actors, in addition to other states.
Western countries that are part of NATO have been referring repeatedly to Russian and Chinese capabilities in hybrid warfare. Just recently, a NATO moot in London noted the need to counter perceived new threats:
“Emerging technologies like hypersonic missiles and quantum computing are changing the threat landscape, the defense secretary said, urging that NATO must to understand the challenges and adapt accordingly.”
Some commentators have pointed out that the combination of regular and irregular methods of warfare is not unique to Russia, China or other countries which have been in antagonism with Western countries. Moreover, there is a long history of the use of methods which could be termed “hybrid warfare” by Western countries themselves – both in building colonial empires and later in fighting the rise of communism in the Cold War.
The important points to note here are two.
Firstly, that hybrid warfare as it is commonly described has existed in some way from the ancient era when Sun Tzu wrote his treatise on conflict; all the way to Russia's highly developed form of military deception in the 20th century and beyond, the famous “Maskirovka”. Therefore, this phenomenon must not be allowed to assume the characteristics of a panic just because non-state actors may be capable of deploying its methods.
Secondly, in an era where democracy all over the world is already under threat from new right-wing forces and nationalist movements which define their own particular goals in national security terms, it is important to avoid conflating dissent and free expression with “hybrid warfare”. It would be a very dangerous situation, indeed, if the activities of journalists, human rights activists, political forces and social movements are deliberately targeted by painting them as part of an “enemy strategy”. In any case, even if such a strategy is deployed against a state, a flourishing and fearless civil society is one of the best possible defenses possible against subversion by malignant forces.
In Pakistan, we already run that risk due to the profligate use of the terms “hybrid warfare” and our local take on it, which is being referred to as “fifth generation warfare”. A country that starts seeing intelligent minds and critical thinkers as vectors of attack eventually becomes its own worst enemy.