Talk:Hybrid warfare

Three Block War

The Three Block War is the reverse of this concept. Both terms handle complex mixed situations, but TBW is a USMC focus on bottom up while HW is USAF style top down warfare. Hcobb (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to remove it go ahead -:) Zabanio (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I will try and find a ref that notes the difference. Hcobb (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

HW is not a USAF owned idiom. Many militaries and people use it. Zabanio (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hybrid Warfare

HW may not appear in any Joint Publications, but it IS in Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 3-0, Unified Land Operations, 10 October 2011. Page 4, "The most likely security threats that Army forces will encounter are best described as hybrid threats. A hybrid threat is the diverse and dynamic combination of regular forces, irregular forces, terrorist forces, criminal elements, or a combination of these forces and elements all unified to achieve mutually benefitting effects. Hybrid threats may involve nation-state adversaries that employ protracted forms of warfare, possibly using proxy forces to coerce and intimidate, or nonstate actors using operational concepts and high-end capabilities traditionally associated with nation-states."

Also, for the Army, the term "battlespace" has been rescinded, but is still in use by the USMC. The correct Army term now is "operational environment." The reference for this is the Army Terminologist, Carlos L. Soto, and the site is https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/armymarine-corps-terminology?view=overview — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.27.1.18 (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

G'day 138.27.1.18, thanks for your point above. I've also suggested the inclusion of the related term, grey-zone tactics/operations as it seems to be coming into fair usage (ref my post below). It may be worth mentioning that as far as I am aware 'battlespace' is still in common usage elsewhere in the world (at least, it is in Australia). Cheers, BlurryOne (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Hybrid warfare could be a crime and yet if Russia does it it isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.198.85 (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of new terminology

G'day. I think that the rise in popularity and frequency of use of the term Grey Zone or Grey-Zone Operations warrants its inclusion, possibly on this page. I've included links to articles and reports from notable international relations strategy think-tanks to demonstrate its common use. I'm curious about any thoughts on the matter, particularly if you think this isn't the appropriate place for its inclusion? "Between War and Peace: Grey-Zone Operations in Asia" "Grey zone operations and the maritime domain" "America’s Counterterrorism Gamble" BlurryOne (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Paramilitary groups and CIA

Obviously CIA setting up right-wing paramilitary groups funded using drug money to conceal US responsibility and using the paramilitary proxy is a perfect example of non-linear or hybrid war. The fact this article is so Russia heavy makes it propaganda. The term may have been popularized by a Russian but the concept has existed much longer in practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.57.171.236 (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

History

I have added the USA currently having a hybrid war with China with reasons. Every argument has been documented by valid sources such as Lowy Institute, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, The Diplomat, Small Wars Journal, US Dept of Defense, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Financial Times, Global Times, Press TV, The Independent, CNBC, ScandAsia, New York Times, The Age, The Guardian, US Naval Institute, Asia Times, Izak Novak, China Global Television Network, China US Focus, Belt and Road News, RAND Corporation...etc. Those sources are either recognized media/ propaganda outlets (which I consider pretty similar actually) or have been extremely well documented, when originating from a blog such as Izak Novak.

The moderator "Neutrality" has removed my addition to that article about "hybrid warfare". That article without my post is actually currently very unbalanced and not objective at all as it only mentions countries other that the United States doing hybrid warfare, and the United States mostly posturing as a victim of hybrid warfare, while it has been abundantly practiced by the United States in the first place. And obviously all those countries are countries that the US would like to consider as enemies or potential enemies. This is the same as saying "that the USA is saving the world by bringing democracy with bombs everywhere, from evil government that torture their people", while the US is actually the first country to torture people in Guantanamo and having them sodomized by dogs in Iraq prisons, or having them lobotomized in secret and illegal prisons (as per the USA own judicial system) all over the world, or having civilians assassinated indiscriminately by drones or by Blackwater personnel... Let's be serious, it is all about power and nobody is clean, starting by the USA. Basically this article about hybrid warfare looks like a propaganda article directly posted by the NSA and dedicated to 3 years old children...

The arguments advanced by the moderator are that 1. my sources/ references are not valid, and 2. they do not match the arguments. I beg to disagree with that opinion. Therefore, I have taken the liberty to re-post my addition to this article and undone the "delete" of that moderator. If necessary, I would be grateful that other moderators as objective as possible have a further look at my post and analyze more in details, whether it can be posted as such or not. If not, please show me which precise points and arguments must be more documented and why. The alternative is giving reason to China for recently blacklisting Wikipedia for being just another propaganda tool in the United States's arsenal of weapons available for controlling and destabilizing populations all over the world... Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.205.205 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This is fascinating! I just got a message from moderator "Neutrality" telling me: QUOTE : Please don't engage in edit warring, insert content that is synthesis, or insert content cited to unreliable sources (including blogs, Chinese state media, fringe websites, etc.). Neutrality^talk 21:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC) : UNQOTE. If moderators at Wikipedia consider that Chinese state media are unreliable sources, then they are forgetting that such sources level of reliability/ unreliability is exactly the same as mainstream media such as the New York Times and the rest, which mostly operate as propaganda tools for the United States and its global interests... then no source is reliable.

The idea that the NYT is the same as China's state-controlled media is a lunatic fever-dream. Please stop bothering the nice sensible people volunteering here. Defenestrator12 (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Chinese state media are as reliable/ unreliable as mainstream media, which are all controlled by the NSA, and as any other state media in the world such as AFP, Reuters, Tass, the Chinese AFP, the American AFP, CNN, BBC, ...etc. Regarding non-state media in China, as they are forbidden, the only existing alternative source of information are blogs, of which well documented ones should be considered valid sources and of interest.... except if you really want to diabolize Chinese people that represent 20% of the world's population, which really looks like a very low level American perception that corresponds to the current USA hybrid war on China... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.205.205 (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It is now the 3rd time that I am re-posting my post that is being urgently deleted by moderator "Neutrality" immediately afterwards. If we do not have balanced moderators let me know where my post need precisions or amendments, I am afraid that moderator "Neutrality" will have to use/ abuse his/ her power to freeze that article to the standard that is required by the NSA for the purpose of American propaganda... henceforth condemning that subject to be further documented by moderators only...

I have just saw the long rant now. Please read Wikipedia:Synthesis, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and WP:ONUS. Many of your sources were blogs, Chinese state media, fringe websites (i.e., not reliable sources) or sources that made no mention of "hybrid warfare" (i.e., synthesis). So no, it is not acceptable here. And if you really believe that mainstream media is "controlled by the NSA" and that Reuters, AFP, and CNN are "state media" — and you can't separate these colorful, idiosyncratic views from your editing here, you should not be editing Wikipedia, which is not a platform for espousing fringe theories. Neutrality^talk 22:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

How enlightening to see that you used your "freezing power" instead of answering my questions intelligibly: "22:32, 17 July 2020‎ Neutrality talk contribs‎ m 36,114 bytes 0‎ Protected "Hybrid warfare": Persistent disruptive editing ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 22:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 22:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)))". Sad to see that you dismiss my explanation and question as a "long rant" (which it probably is anyway) instead of answering me constructively. Do you realize that you are saying that "Chinese state media" are more unreliable or less reliable that usual "mainstream media" sources (that tell people that wearing mask in case of pandemic is dangerous for them!) or other "state media" sources, including US government sources???... I am slowly starting to understand why it is so easy for the US government to currently use COVID-19 to abundantly reduce its population in the United States... have you seen the US mortality rate compared with that in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Singapore?... ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.205.205 (talk)

I have already given you appropriate guidance about Wikipedia policy and about why your edits run afoul of that. If you can find (1) mainstream or reliable sources (WP:RS) that (2) expressly discuss "hybrid warfare by the United States in the 2010s" (WP:V, WP:RS); and you can construct text (3) that is not undue weight or phrased with loaded language not supported by sources and (4) establish consensus for inclusion, then your proposed edit has a chance of acceptance. What will not persuade people is disruptively editing; not understanding Wikipedia policy; posting off-topic statements about views on American or the media; spreading conspiracies, or being uncivil. Neutrality^talk 23:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Neutrality, I let other moderators judge about whom is being uncivil in this exchange... I do now understand why China has banned Wikipedia on its territory (I was actually wondering). When Wikipedia does not accept Chinese media as valid sources, while it accepts American or other mainstream media as valid sources, it therefore accepts to be biased in favor of an American/ mainstream media narrative. My perception is that instead of being a global encyclopedia, which I understand was the aim of its founder, Wikipedia has now become one more outlet of propaganda/ opinion control of the American government to the world. It shows a slow degradation of the American culture from being based on facts to being based on belief systems, religious or political. This is similar to what we are seeing in the USA nowadays relative to masks and other means of protecting oneself from the virus; and where a large part of the population does not even believe COVID-19 exists. What a sad state of affairs for Wikipedia, which was supposed to be much more than the expression of one culture but that of all cultures in the world!... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.205.205 (talk) (UTC)

None of this rambling has anything whatsoever to do with the principles I linked to you above. If you want to opine generally, you can find an Internet forum. Wikipedia is not an Internet forum. Neutrality^talk 02:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Mattis

I have found a couple of sources that attribute the term to former SecDef James Mattis, in a speech he made in Arlington on Sept 8, 2005, a year before the source attributed here. One such source is TERRORISM: COMMENTARY ON SECURITY DOCUMENTS VOLUME 141, edited by Douglas Lovelace Jr., p. 93 (https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=zd4mDAAAQBAJ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defenestrator12 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)