Shedding Light on the Gray Zone: A New Approach to Human-Centric Warfare by Lt. Gen. Charles T. Cleveland, U.S. Army retired, Lt. Col. Shaw S. Pick and Lt. Col. Stuart L. Farris, Army Magazine
At the same time the world is less inclined to go to war, weak governments are failing and the tools of warfare are far cheaper and accessible to both states and nonstate actors. This confluence of forces is enabling our adversaries to find sanctuary in weakly governed spaces where they can leverage technology to increasingly challenge us in a “gray zone” between what we have considered peaceful interstate political competition and open war. Perhaps the single most important characteristic of contemporary gray zone conflicts is that they will occur among human populations living under varying levels of effective governance and security.
Given this reality, we must revisit our understanding of the security environment and ask difficult questions about the efficacy of our current approaches. Further, the concept of winning must be fundamentally re-examined in the context of a future environment in which conventional wars will be supplanted by population-centric conflicts and asymmetric challenges to U.S. power…
Comments
Edited and added to:
Consider the following observation from a "War On The Rocks" article entitled: "American Did Hybrid Warfare Too:"
"The last time Russia and the United States grappled indirectly as adversaries in 'the gray areas,' during the final phase of the Cold War, it was the United States that put a hybrid 'blend of military, economic, diplomatic, criminal, and informational means' to effective use, notably in Central America."
http://warontherocks.com/2015/04/america-did-hybrid-warfare-too/
Questions:
a. Are the "gray areas," discussed in the above-referenced "War On The Rocks" article, are these the same as the "gray zone" being discussed by the authors of our SMJ article here; in both cases, these such "gray spaces" being identified as "the area between peaceful interstate competition and open war?" Likewise,
b. Is the "human-centric warfare," identified in this "War On The Rocks" article, is this similar to the "human-centric warfare" being addressed by the authors of our thread here?
If so, then might we say that we are very familiar, indeed, with such "gray area"/"human-centric" warfare.
Our such experience, however, being related more to:
a. Containing/rolling back/resisting/spoiling the political, economic and social expansionist efforts of our opponents. And not so much with
b. Advancing our own political, economic and social models; this, in the face of such containment/roll back/resistance/spoiling efforts as are being offered by our opponents today?
(Added part begins here:)
In this regard, consider the following from Page 80 of the 1962 article entitled "Unconventional Warfare: American and Soviet Approaches" by Colonel (U.S. Army Reserve) Slavko N. Bjelajac (who, in the article, is said to be an expert on unconventional warfare and, as such, is said to have lectured on unconventional warfare at the Special Warfare Center and the National War College):
"The offensive employment of unconventional warefare -- to extend political and strategic positions -- has been almost solely a weapon of the Sino-Soviet block in the Cold War. It can be generalized that the Communists follow a pattern of active and aggressive promotion of their goals, while the United States and allied countries have used unconventional warfare primarily for the protection and safeguarding of their interests."
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1034145?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Globalization 1.0: Which finds:
a. During the Cold War, the Soviets and communism are on a global expansionist march.
b. The conservative elements of various states and societies resisting the radical political, economic and social changes that the Soviet's/the communist's seek to facilitate (most often via "liberal" elements/allies). And
c. The West forming alliances with the conservative elements; this, to prevent, or reverse, such "transformations and to, thereby, "contain" and "roll back" Soviet/communists attempts to gain greater power, influence and control in various regions of the world.
Globalization 2.0: The reverse of the above.
a. During the post-Cold War, it is the West, and market-democracy, that are on a global expansionist march.
b. The conservative elements of various populations resisting the radical political, economic and social changes that the West seeks to bring about (likewise via the "liberal" elements of the population). And
c. The West's enemies (Russia, China, Iran, ISIS), working with the conservative elements of various populations much as we did during the Cold War, seeking to contain and roll back Western power, influence and control in various reasons of the world.
Thus, Globalization 2.0, above, being the strategic context which best describes the "grey zone," and the "human-centric warfare environment," that we find ourselves in today?