Terminology has a tyranny all of its own. Historically there is a tendency to view defence and security conundrums through the filter of a “new” form of warfare. In many ways, the discourse on the concept of Hybrid Warfare falls into this realm. Some analysts, scholars and practitioners argue that hybrid warfare represents a new evolution in warfare. Others are equally convinced that it represents nothing new aside from changing terminology.
However, the objective of war – to achieve a desired end state – is unchanging. History has shown that from antiquity combatants have used every
methodology available to them to achieve surprise, minimize the superiority of their enemies and maximize their own relative strengths. (i.e.: the Trojan Horse mythology, barbarian tactics against the Romans, French-Canadian raiders during the struggle for North America; the British reliance on their Royal Navy throughout history; the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour). The decisions of how to fight, how great the mobilization of resources will be, whether to approach the conflict as a limited or unlimited/total war, as well as the technology available may differ between epochs and combatants. Nonetheless, the underlying premise of how combatants approach war has not changed.
An examination of hybrid warfare through this prism is therefore useful because it illuminates the fact that hybrid warfare does not represent an
evolution of warfare. Rather, it merely represents the manifestation of globalization’s effect on the means and methods available to combatants to wage war to achieve their desired political outcomes.
Defining Hybrid Warfare
Initially, it is important to understand how hybrid warfare has been framed from a definitional perspective. Not surprisingly, definitions vary widely. Part of the apparent confusion arises from the perspective taken on hybrid warfare as it can be viewed from a tactical/operational perspective, or from a larger strategic viewpoint. For instance, when discussing counter-insurgency or operations against a non-state antagonist such as Hezbollah or the Islamic State (ISIS) hybrid warfare takes a very tactical approach blending the ideas of asymmetry, conventional and irregular warfare. However, at the strategic level, when discussing a nation’s manipulation of its entire spectrum of resources, such as the Russian approach to conflict in Georgia and the Ukraine, hybrid warfare takes on a different complexity. Regardless, in each case, the means and motives remain consistent – to use all available resources to attain the desired political outcome.
Despite the plethora of definitions that exist, there is a general agreement that hybrid warfare blends conventional, irregular, asymmetric, criminal and terrorist means and methods to achieve a political objective. Importantly, whether state or non-state actors, adversaries make use of the proliferation of technology and information that has accompanied globalization. Instruments such as cyber warfare, economic coercion or blackmail, exploitation of societal conflict in a target country and the waging of disinformation campaigns and psychological warfare are all in the inventory. Criminal behaviour and terrorism are also in the repertoire of combatants. But these are all methodologies that have always been exploited by insurgents and states, whether involved in limited or total wars.
As such, hybrid warfare from a strategic perspective, entails the mobilization of a wide range of a state’s resources, primarily relying on non-violent
methodologies, to achieve a desired political endstate. In fact, military violence is largely rejected. In essence, hybrid warfare is seen as a methodology of achieving a political end state without tripping the threshold of war, which would allow an opponent the recourse to legally use force and/or attract
international intervention. Importantly, hybrid warfare creates a perfect ambiguity that paralyzes opponents since they are not even aware that they are under attack.
Impact of Globalization
Although hybrid warfare is not a new phenomenon, its application has gained incredible impetus and effectiveness as a result of globalization and the
increased access, if not proliferation, of advanced technology and information. Undeniably, the world has become extremely interdependent and
interconnected. This connectivity has created great advantages, wealth and opportunity; however, it has also created enormous security concerns.
Globalization has arguably reshaped the security landscape. It has changed the access and flow of information, making means of communicating,
planning and financing, as well as the ability to gather important and relevant information extremely easy.
Furthermore, the pervasive media, broadcast news, the internet and social media have created a crisis of immediacy. Information travels faster and farther, reaching millions in real time, often without context or verification of its authenticity. As such, the ability to respond to a developing story, whether real or not, becomes extremely difficult for governments and security organizations.
Exacerbating this reality is the fact that the interconnected and interdependent world, with a complex web of transnational corporations, foreign
investment, economic and political interests, transnational criminal and terrorist organizations, has also generated an arguably unrestricted market place where advanced technology, historically the purview of nation states, is now as accessible to non-state actors as it is to sovereign powers. In fact, many nonstate actors, such as narco-traffickers and terrorists, have greater wealth than many of the countries in which they operate.
As a result of globalization, the ability to conduct hybrid warfare has increased in its effectiveness and reach. At the tactical and operational level, opponents have greater ability to access advanced weapons and information technology with which to fight. In addition, their ability to attack political will, reach into the homeland and/or conduct terrorist attacks has increased.
At the strategic level, states through the coordinated application of the entirety of their resources at their disposal can take advantage of social, political and economic vulnerabilities of their opponents and cripple them without actually taking any overt violent or military action. Rather, by utilizing a hybrid methodology they insidiously weaken, if not outright destroy, their adversaries without firing a shot.
Characteristics of Hybrid Warfare
Effective application of hybrid warfare in the new “globalized world” ideally means the actions should be undetectable, or more accurately unattributable. Creative asymmetric methodologies utilizing an indirect approach through cut-outs or plausibly deniable intermediaries can mask ownership of action. Nonetheless, hybrid warfare possesses some identifiable characteristics. These are:
1. The element of surprise;
2. Ambiguity – what has actually occurred and who is responsible;
3. Propaganda and disinformation;
4. Agitation;
5. Cyber attack;
6. Economic measures (e.g. embargo, blockade, boycott);
7. Denial of involvement;
8. Military participation, if involved, is indistinguishable from civilian participants;
9. Synchronization across all domains (i.e. an integrated campaign);
10. A slow persistent campaign designed to achieve political objective over time rather than a quick decisive outcome.
The “New” Threat
Whether at the tactical/operational or the strategic level, hybrid warfare represents a major threat. Its methodologies are all encompassing and go beyond the conventional thinking to which military and political decision-makers are accustomed. Each is constrained by their education, training and experience. As such, there is a tendency to see the world/operations in terms of how we conduct diplomacy, operations and/or war. The failure to
realize others utilize a different “playbook” can lead to failure and crisis.
At the strategic level a significant problem is the fact that a target country is normally not even aware it is under attack until it may be too late. This is not hard to understand. First, politically there is tendency to trust other international actors and institutions, despite historic precedence. Moreover, even if distrust is present, there is certainly no inclination to act forcefully unless there is international consensus and blatant violations of international law that can be clearly proven. Within a democratic institution or coalition, reaching consensus is normally a long, painful process.
Second, governments and their electorates are far more concerned about economic prosperity rather than potential dangers of selling off key components of a nation’s economy. As such, foreign investment is seen through the filter of opportunity rather than a potential threat. Moreover, large deficits, often funded through bond issues, also open a country to potential pressure by external powers financing that debt.
Third, the Western liberal democratic tradition holds personal freedoms sacrosanct. As a result, there is a near apoplectic reaction to any attempt to monitor or investigate individuals or organizations that may be manipulated by a foreign power but represent a distinct national interest group. The ability to create social discord or political dissent that can paralyze or consume a target government is after all a major instrument in the hybrid warfare playbook.
As a result, an adversary can easily manipulate vulnerabilities in a target society by creating incidents or financing agitators. Finally, competition between governmental organizations, law enforcement and/or intelligence/security agencies can create bureaucratic barriers that may fail to detect an adversary’s thrusts into a target society. Although the contemporary security environment has necessitated a closer working relationship between agencies, particularly security and intelligence agencies, a degree of “stove-piping” still transpires as protection of careers, budgets, institutional reputation and practices, as well as information is undertaken.
In sum, the threat posed by hybrid warfare is substantial. Its application is insidious as it deludes decision-makers into separating the specific tactics being utilized by an adversary from the actual strategic level political objectives that are driving their campaign. In short, it becomes hard to recognize that one is under attack or at “war.” As such, it becomes difficult to recognize the seemingly disconnected series of events as a carefully synchronized campaign designed to achieve specific political objectives.
Countering Hybrid Warfare
A prevalent criticism against the West at present is that it is reacting to hybrid attacks rather than maintaining the initiative. As such, it is necessary
to first understand the threat and then develop the necessary counter measures. The largest factor is the complacency that often exists. From a tactical/operational perspective it is often difficult for commanders at all levels to see beyond their training and theoretical understanding of war and how it should be fought. From a strategic point of view it is often difficult to recognize the peril that exists and differentiate it from the normal clutter of day-to-day “political” life. For these reasons it is important to develop clear national strategy for countering hybrid warfare.
The first step is education. It is important that the national security infrastructure, as well as the political leadership and society as a whole comprehend the nature of hybrid warfare, its characteristics, means and political objectives. As part of this process, national vulnerabilities should be identified (e.g. economic susceptibilities, social cleavages, political frailties). Parallel to these efforts “trip wires” must be identified that can signal a potential attack and defensive mechanisms that need to be put into place.
Practitioners in the security sectors (e.g. intelligence, military, law enforcement) must be especially wellinformed with regard to hybrid warfare so that
they can continually monitor events, protect core institutions and functions from malicious activities and provide early warning, act proactively or at a
minimum react immediately to defuse a potential crisis initiated as part of a hostile attack.
Important to a robust defence against hybrid warfare is a comprehensive security approach. This method begins with education of key practitioners but must extend into the larger society. All major stakeholders within a given state or society must share a common understanding of the threat and situational awareness. In essence, it is not only the government that takes the responsibility for countering hybrid attacks but rather the entire society, including the private sector and the public at large. For instance, the public should be made aware of threats, techniques and disinformation that has been promulgated, as well as by who. In addition, private industry can identify and inform on new, aberrant activities and practices that may be harmful to the nation or industry. Also, it is important to know who is buying up key components within the economic sector.
Moreover, the media can strengthen its efforts to verify the accuracy of information prior to widespread dissemination to prevent malicious disinformation intended to inflame targeted audiences. Service providers can restrict accounts of those who use them to radicalize, agitate or attempt to create hate and special interest forums can pressure members to transparently disclose funding sources (or alternatively, citizens can support their government in monitoring those that fail to do so). Quite simply, it is very important to know who is financing protest and special interest groups.
However, this collaborate form of national security requires a shared understanding of the threat, risks and defence concept. As such, it relies on strong political leadership and a government that is perceived to be truthful and credible. This requirement entails information sharing and a cooperative relationship with the private sector, particularly the media.
Another key component to the defence against hybrid threats is the battle for the narrative, or in other words, strategic communications. A robust, well-informed, aggressive effort must be placed into disseminating information that lays out a narrative that explains national intentions and actions, as well as challenging disinformation and competing storylines.
Counter measures to hybrid warfare can also take on a more aggressive form. The application of economic sanctions, the deployment of military forces, diplomatic actions, restrictions on media and focused cyber counter-measures can all signal to adversaries that the cost of their actions may entail too great a cost to continue. Additionally, counter intelligence efforts can be focused on foreign countries that are known to utilize hybrid warfare (e.g. Russia, China) to block their efforts at subverting or manipulating target societies. It is important that analysis is continually conducted to detect adversary preparations or attacks.
Is Canada Ready?
In light of the threat that hybrid warfare poses, the question becomes, is Canada ready? Importantly, the immediate thought is – does it have to be? Is
Canada actually threatened? After all, capability and effort must be juxtaposed against actual risk. Equally significant, however, is the fact that complacency and blissful ignorance must not be mistaken for due diligence. Although Canada is often seen as “a fireproof house,” the reality is quite different. For instance, as Canadian troops deploy to the Middle East and/or North Africa, as well as other potential trouble spots in the years to come, they will face adversaries that utilize the full breadth of hybrid warfare to achieve their objectives. At the strategic level, Canada will continue to face opponents in its exercise of its national interests, whether territorial, economic or resource related (e.g. the Arctic), or diplomatic/political (e.g. Russia, Syria, Iran). In addition, as a member of a number of alliances and coalitions, adversaries may wish to distract and disrupt Canadian efforts by targeting it for hybrid attacks, thereby shifting its focus onto more domestic, pressing issues and away from international affairs.
As result, Canada is a risk and should have a strategy for countering, if not engaging in, hybrid warfare. Unfortunately, complacency and a failure to fully recognize, understand and/or perceive that there is a threat that dampen the nation’s ability to counter hybrid warfare. This failure to acknowledge the threat (or capability) that exists eliminates the necessary top level leadership to ensure a comprehensive national approach. Although individual methodologies (e.g. cyber, intelligence, foreign investment review protocols) are addressed as significant factors with regard to national security, they are not necessarily coordinated or “calibrated” to see events through a lens of potential hybrid attack. In short, the security
infrastructure, although better partnered than in years past, is still largely focused on traditional threat streams.
The Department of National Defence (DND) is arguably the most advanced of the governmental departments in its education with regards to hybrid
warfare. Yet, its efforts are largely tactical in nature and far from comprehensive. In the end, although there is a recognition that hybrid warfare exists, to most it is manifested at the tactical/operational level, specifically with asymmetric methodologies utilized by non-state actors and insurgents to achieve military and political objectives. There appears to be an inability to stretch the agility of thought beyond the conventional paradigm of international conflict and war. Or, perhaps it is a calculated decision – the risk assessment being that the time, effort and expense of educating and mobilizing the nation to develop a comprehensive societal approach to countering hybrid warfare is just too hard or expensive to do. In the end, the nation is not yet prepared.
