Facts and Fallacies of Hybrid Warfare: Old Wine in New Bottle?

Challenges and Options for Pakistan

by Air Commodore (R) Khalid Iqbal TI (M)*

The writer is a retired air commodore of Pakistan Air Force, he is founding chairperson of a leading think tank “Pakistan Focus”. An abridged version of this paper was read in an international conference organized by the Political Science Department of Peshawar University (Bara Gali Campus) and HSF Islamabad on September 3-5 2018. The paper has since been updated, research closed on July 22, 2019.

Abstract

(This paper takes a look at the Hybrid War—as structured during post Cold War era, assesses ensuing challenges to Pakistan and examines likely options to mitigate the impact. – Author)

Background

Over the last 2-3 years, the nomenclature ‘hybrid warfare’ was over glorified in Pakistan as in many – US led – Western strategic and leadership circles, as if this were a new discovery, a new type of warfare descending upon a typical nation state.¹ The US-USSR cold war era had produced this concept of Hybrid warfare – though piece meal – in its several facets viz. economic warfare, psy-ops, black propaganda, proxy wars, political interventions, etc. Until the meltdown of the USSR, everything was part of the Cold War, except direct military confrontation between the two superpowers. Strategists often give a new lease of life to phasing out concepts by evolving new terms for old yet evolving notions.² Since the cold war was associated with the capitalist-communist bipolar world, once that arena wound-up, a different nomenclature for what is essentially a continuation of the cold war had to evolve. What was earlier known as ‘cold war’ is now referred to as ‘hybrid war’; new technological advancements have given it some face-lifting.

Hybrid warfare is the “synchronised use of multiple instruments of power tailored to specific vulnerabilities across the full spectrum of societal functions to achieve synergistic effects”.³ Hybrid warfare is fought on multiple levels simultaneously, with Liddell Hart’s strategy of the Indirect Approach as an underlying principle. Hybrid warfare has shifted the ‘centre of gravity’ notion. Terms like ‘operational’, ‘tactical’ and ‘strategic’ become blurred when focusing on the enemy’s centre of gravity. Now the concept is to view the enemy holistically; moving conceptually back to Clausewitz by not referring to levels but treating war as an all-encompassing format. The central focus of neo cold war or hybrid warfare is on propaganda via a strong political narrative to accompany doctrine and strategy.⁴

Hybrid war is fought on multiple levels and direct force – kinetic element – is not the principal instrument. The critical component of hybrid warfare is the dissemination of a viable narrative. Hybrid warfare is not new; the means of waging it have, since long, evolved and expanded into all dimensions of state and society. Hence, there is a necessity to counter such wars holistically and there is an enhanced necessity of Clemenceau style civilian supremacy. Hybrid warfare throws up a complex challenge of institutional alignment and harmony – indeed an institutional orchestration.⁵

Hybrid means fusing together or mixing of more than one form of anything.⁶ The warfare toolbox has always had a wide range of choices. Starting towards the end of 2016, there was certainly an over doze of Hybrid War for the people of Pakistan. It appeared as if a new calamity was descending fast ⁷ to hit Pakistan. Defence analysts and strategic studies circles in associated and not-so-associated fields appeared comically obsessed with aligning everything with the Hybrid War Black Hole.

While Pakistan was concerned about an over dose of a highly sophisticated facet of warfare, for which no one had a viable solution, the Indian Prime Minister, in a most crude exercise of power, annexed Indian Occupied Kashmir on August 05, 2019, “without bloodying his sword”, hence imposing a state of helplessness and embarrassment for Pakistan’s national leadership, thinking intelligentsia and academic circles.

Hybrid fever had hit Pakistan via Western politico-strategic circles ⁸ (mostly American think tanks). Pakistan was overawed and swayed by this narrative. The American dynamics were different. Pakistan had no such need to crush itself under imaginary pressures and lower its guard against the usual ones.

One internet definition states: “Hybrid warfare is a military strategy that employs political warfare and blends conventional warfare, irregular warfare and cyber warfare with other influencing methods, such as fake news, diplomacy, lawfare and foreign electoral intervention.”⁹ This definition encompasses all facets of warfare. One wonders if it adds anything new to the traditionally accepted definition of War. The conception of indirect strategy and Liddell Hart’s concept of the Indirect Approach had long ago tackled the issue of what we now call Hybrid Warfare: “frontal assaults and massive showdowns are to be avoided; rather one should aim at the enemy’s line of least expectation”, and therefore least resistance.¹⁰

The Direct and Indirect Strategies ¹¹ as well as Kinetic and Non-Kinetic concepts of warfare ¹² had adequately addressed non-military ways of subduing an adversary. With the advent of airpower and the emergence of atomic, biological and chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), war had already gone beyond the purview of militaries, and graduated to the concept of ‘nations at war’. ¹³ Clausewitz’s concept of ‘Centre of Gravity’ involved more than battles fought between militaries. Starting with the first world war (WW I), hybrid warfare came into existence when the battlefield expanded from direct militaries fighting each other to a more expansive war theatre including civilians and industrial targeting; and it matured after WW II.¹⁴

The ‘Art of War’ by Sun Tzu from the Spring and Autumn period of Chinese history (770-476 BC) seems quite relevant in trying to find some credence to this hybrid doctrine of recent times.¹⁵ Whereas Western strategists and the Subcontinent’s military leaders follow Clausewitzian concepts of “centre of gravity”, “balance of forces”, and focus on assembling superior power at the “decisive point” to achieve victories in pure military combats, Sun Tzu concentrates on developing a superior political and psychological position that helps win a war without fighting it. According to Sun Tzu: “ultimate excellence lies not in winning every battle, but in defeating the enemy without ever fighting. The highest form of warfare is to attack the enemy’s strategy itself”.¹⁶ “The victorious army is victorious first – and seeks battle later”; “the defeated army does battle first – and seeks victory later”. Russian strategist Andrew Korybko has noted that “Russia’s Eurasian integration objectives and China’s Silk Road projects are the targets of US global Hybrid Warfare strategy”. Calling Pakistan a “zipper” of Pan-Eurasian economic integration, Korybko says that Pakistan is also likely to be a target of hybrid warfare.¹⁷

International consensus on hybrid warfare is clear: no one understands it, but everyone agrees that it is a problem; yet every actor likes to continue using it, while wishing that everyone else should stop subscribing to it.¹⁸ It is a chaotic way of conflict resolution representing a chaotic political World Order, mired in criss-crossing power linages leading to alliances and counter alliances.¹⁹

Evolving the Global Mosaic

In a full circle, we are back to the “Might is Right” era, idolising and idealising Machiavellian and Kauṭilyan statecraft doctrines. This is not the first time that direct and indirect strategies have come into play simultaneously and in a haphazard way; the irony is that prevention of such an uncertainty was the main objective of the post-World War II political order. One may not like the Hybrid version of warfare, yet one has to stay prepared to counter it; and if one may say, a typical nation state has to fight it perpetually; as such wars are mostly won by the adversary quietly and without formally declaring its beginning – the melt down of the Soviet Union is a recent example .

There is no universally accepted definition of hybrid warfare. This leads to some debate whether the term is useful at all. In practice, any threat can be hybrid as long as it is not limited to a single form and dimension of warfare. The term Hybrid warfare can be used to describe the flexible and complex dynamics of the battlespace requiring a highly adaptable and resilient response. There are a variety of terms used to refer to the hybrid war concept: hybrid war, hybrid threats, hybrid influencing, hybrid adversary, non-linear war, non-traditional war or special war, etc. Military bodies tend to speak in terms of a hybrid threat, while academic literature speaks of hybrid warfare. Often these terms are used interchangeably. Some contemporary examples are: Rise and fall of Al-Qaeda,²⁰ Israel–Hezbollah War (2006); ²¹ Daesh advances into Middle East and North Africa and reversals,²² Russian and the US tit for tat triggered activities in Middle East and North Africa; ²³ American handling of post 9/11 counter terrorism operations;²⁴ Indian disruptive and terrorist activities in Pakistan, etc. When any threat or use of force is defined as hybrid, the term loses its value and causes confusion with regard to fixing responsibility in cases of criminal pursuits.

Some analysts argue that the term is too abstract. Over abstractness of the term means that it is often used as a catch all term for all non-linear threats. The generally accepted notion is that hybrid warfare means synchronized use of multiple instruments of power tailored to specific vulnerabilities across the full spectrum of societal functions to achieve synergistic effects. The relative uniqueness of this warfare lies in the ability of an actor to synchronize multiple instruments of power simultaneously and intentionally exploit creativity, ambiguity, non-linearity and the cognitive elements of warfare. Hybrid warfare is a textbook case of ‘the whole being greater than the sum of its parts’.

Hybrid warfare, conducted by state or non-state actors, is typically tailored to remain below obvious detection and response thresholds, and often relies on speed, volume and ubiquity of digital technology that characterizes the present information age. Hybrid warfare is already prevalent and widespread, it is used by state and non-state actors alike, and is likely to grow as a challenge, justifying new efforts by nations to understand the threat it presents.

We need to visualize the global and regional context in which hybrid strategies are being played out. There is growing chaos and confusion as the rules-based global order is under threat of breaking down. Power relations are less clear. Trust in the rules-based global order and among states is at a breaking point and international cooperation is becoming more difficult. Universal values are being eroded and democratic principles are under siege. The world is being carved up into spheres of influence and, hence, a return to great power rivalry is imminent. The US administration has made clear its distrust of international treaties and institutions by scrapping the Iran nuclear deal, most of the Russo-US Nuclear Force related treaties, the Paris climate agreement and by slashing United Nations’ funding. The US stance has emboldened Russia and China to push their view of the global order in which human rights take a second seat to development and sovereignty rights. Peace efforts are failing and respect for international humanitarian norms is unravelling. There is an emergence of great power contests, recalibration of the balance of power and arrangements with emphasis on issue-based partnerships and transactional relationships instead of traditional alliances. Globalization is pitched against populism. ²⁵

Over 90 percent of global youth live in the developing countries.²⁶ If left unemployed, they have the potential of being recruited by anti-state actors through inducements and incentives. Refugees and immigrants can increase the risk of social disturbances.²⁷ Social media is shaping opinions while simultaneously being used as a handy disinformation machine. A simple tweet can instantly change the strategic security environment. Violent actors are using social media as a disruptive and destructive tool. International organizations and selected NGOs offer diversity of means available for international coercion. Digitalization enhances vulnerabilities of the state and armed forces, especially when exposed to cyber-attacks by the state and non-state actors. There is an increased dominance of unmanned military capability through involvement of military drones, robots and artificial intelligence powered weaponry. Militarization of global commons – including outer space and, more importantly, the sea – is an accepted norm.

The fragile post-Cold War world order, characterised by a unipolar format, started facing potent challenges to its supremacy soon after its inception. Though the power differential between the US and its nearest competitor continues to be phenomenal, the United States is clearly concerned and working towards retaining its number one position. The related machinations have resulted in the simultaneous application of third, fourth and fifth generation war tactics and strategies alongside an assortment of indirect strategy machinations. What has evolved as international behaviour is what one could call as “Compound Warfare” or “Gray-Hybrid Warfare”.

Hybrid warfare implies the following aspects: a non-standard, complex, and fluid adversary; use of mass communication for propaganda; three discernible battlefields, viz the conventional battlefield, the indigenous population of the conflict zone, and the international community. An added factor is the sophistication and lethality of non-state actors as commercial technologies such as cell phones and digital networks are adapted to the battlefield. This gives these non-state actors phenomenal staying power to persist within modern international systems.

The US Army defined a hybrid threat in 2011 as “the diverse and dynamic combination of regular forces, irregular forces, criminal elements, or a combination of these forces and elements all unified to achieve mutually benefiting effects”.²⁸ NATO uses the term to describe “adversaries with the ability to simultaneously employ conventional and non-conventional means adaptively in pursuit of their objectives”.²⁹

An article published in “Global Security Review” entitled “What is Hybrid Warfare?” compares the notion of hybrid warfare to the Russian concept of “non-linear” warfare. It defines non-linear warfare as the deployment of “conventional and irregular military forces in conjunction with psychological, economic, political, and cyber assaults.” In November 2014, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said:

“It is an interesting term, but I would apply it above all to the United States and its war strategy – it is truly a hybrid war aimed not so much at defeating the enemy militarily as at changing the regimes in the states that pursue a policy Washington does not like. It is using financial and economic pressure, information attacks, using others on the perimeter of a corresponding state as proxies and of course information and ideological pressure through externally financed non-governmental organisations. Is it not a hybrid process and not what we call war?”

The evolutionary process of hybrid conflict may pass through 5 stages, in any combination; hybrid conflict is flexible enough to skip or overlap these stages in various combinations, and sub-stages could cross mix to keep the target guessing about the strategy.³⁰

• Stage 1: The societal and structural remapping of a country is undertaken by manipulation of socio political vulnerabilities, that is ethnic-religious-socio economic disparities, human rights and governance issues.
• Stage 2: Weakening of the state structure, inducing insurgencies, terrorism, cyber threats in sync with hostile actions.
• Stage 3: Cohesion of the state may be broken by weakening the government-armed forces-people triangle. In case of internally induced movements and measures, globally recognized sanctions are impose to coax and compel the target state.
• Stage 4: During this stage, all elements achieve synchronization under one strategic script. Mayhem will be ensured to compel the victim state to modify its stance on core issues, and this time overtly.
• Stage 5: Application of kineticism through an engineered/triggered event, designed to inflame internal and external hostile elements into physical action such as occupation of important installations, civil disobedience resulting in internal collapse which may be exploited by external conventional forces.

Countering Hybrid War

There is no universally accepted strategy of waging or countering Hybrid war.³¹ Flexible nature of hybrid warfare allows more of a “trial-and-error” approach to foreign intervention.³² Such a war employs a hydra headed strategy that encompasses everything; such a strategy is also applied as a recourse for those countering it.

Traditional militaries find it hard to respond to hybrid warfare. Many traditional militaries lack the flexibility to shift tactics, priorities, and objectives on a constant basis, which becomes their limiting factor. Often the conflict evolves under the horizon and even a “rapid” response turns out to be too late. Overwhelming force is an insufficient deterrent. Collective defence organizations, such as NATO, might find it yet harder to agree on the source and course of the conflict, hence making viable response difficult. Russian intervention in Ukraine generated much debate about the use and effectiveness of hybrid warfare. During the last decade, some of the most important military forces and coalitions in the world, including NATO, have attempted to address and counter these so-called hybrid threats. This rediscovered theory of hybrid and 4th generation warfare is helping evolve a hybrid democracy and media and civil society which can “combat hybrid threats” ³³ since the “synergetic application of the entire national potential and all elements of national power is the only way to be victorious in a hybrid war”.³⁴

There is also a need to identify the enemy-within, along with the outside-enemy. Insiders like fringe dissident elements, shadowy nationalist militant groups, handful of social media activists, elements from academia, media and the NGOs readily become instrumental in playing second fiddle to the enemy’s hybrid warfare by echoing the enemy’s propaganda line.³⁵

Emerging challenges for Pakistan

In this backdrop, Pakistan is likely to remain a country of significance in modern geostrategic and geo-economic contestations. Sources of stability and instability hinge around its strategic and economic relevance. This coupled with a volatile neighbourhood characterized by the global phenomena of hybrid conflict is continuously attempting to turn our geostrategic significance into a geo strategic challenge.

Global and regional dynamics of conflict are rapidly changing ³⁶ and posing a challenge to traditional state structures and military institutions. South Asia is no exception; the perpetual state of conflict between India and Pakistan is changing and blurring the line between the states of war and peace. Wars are no longer formally declared, these must be assumed as a perennial feature of interstate relations. Reliance on kinetic measures to intercept non-linear threats is no longer an option ³⁷ National leadership should conform to this facet of leadership and familiarise itself with alternate tools to tackle the emerging complex and unpredictable internal and external security landscape.³⁸

Pakistan is facing enormous challenges in conventional and sub-conventional domains. Our enemies know that they cannot beat us fair and square, and have thus subjected us to a protracted hybrid war. The precarious situation on Pakistan’s eastern and western borders with India and Afghanistan, and the growing covert activities of hostile states to inflict wounds through the triggering of new faultiness and kick-starting the dormant ones are a confirmation of our current hybrid threat.

It is no secret that, for a very long time, India’s notorious intelligence agency, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), has been carrying out covert operations inside Pakistan through proxies and terrorist networks that fall within Hybrid parameters.³⁹ For the first time in 2009, Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Yusuf Raza Gilani, had handed over a dossier of RAW’s involvement in terrorist activities to his Indian counterpart, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, during their meeting, on the side-lines of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit, at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.⁴⁰ Later, Pakistan regularly handed over such dossiers to the UNSG.⁴¹ These dossiers have amply highlighted how India’s security and intelligence agencies had been using Afghanistan’s soil to train and fund terrorist activities in ex-FATA and other parts of Pakistan. Furthermore, India is directly involved in igniting the insurgency in Balochistan through clandestine support to insurgents and their militant organisations. It was also reported in Indian media that in 2009, India had hosted Baloch insurgents in New Delhi.⁴² Most of the ethno-sectarian disturbances and their funding are often traced back to India.

In 2013, former Indian Army chief, General Vijay Kumar Singh, admitted that following the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the Indian army raised a Tactical Support Division (TSD), which carried out bomb blasts in Pakistan, and doled out money to separatist elements in Balochistan.⁴³ Such clandestine activities further increased when Mr Narendra Modi, a demagogic hardliner and dogmatic agitator, became the Prime Minister of India in May 2014. From then onwards, Indian policy has been guided by the so-called “Doval Doctrine”⁴⁴, coined by the former RAW chief, Ajit Doval, who became the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister. This Doctrine envisages engaging the enemy at three levels, i.e. defensive, defensive-offensive and offensive-defensive. The offensive-defensive mode requires going into Pakistan and ‘tackling the problem where it originated’. Doval went on to retort: “You may do one Mumbai; you may lose Balochistan”.⁴⁵ India is using conventional means in an unconventional manner to achieve their controversial goals – which is what constitutes a ‘hybrid threat’ to Pakistan.⁴⁶

Actionable evidence about use of such tactics was once again discovered in March 2016 when Pakistan’s intelligence and security agencies unearthed a large clandestine RAW network involved in sabotage, espionage, and terrorist activities. Leading this network was Commander Kulbushan Jadhav, an Indian Navy’s commissioned officer. The Indian spy confessed to the nefarious nature of his activities, which included terrorism among other doings, intended to destabilize the country. Furthermore, he also confessed to being assigned by RAW “to plan and organise espionage and sabotage activities” in Balochistan and Karachi.⁴⁷

Carrying out false flag operations while laying blame on Pakistan and claiming victimhood are the hallmarks of Indian strategy. After the Uri and Pathankot attacks India blamed Pakistan, within hours, without any substantial evidence. Subsequently, in order to weigh options for ‘retaliation’ for the perceived ingresses, Prime Minister Modi held high level meetings and made a famous statement that created a stir in national and international media. Presiding over the Indus Water Commission meeting, he said, ‘blood and water cannot flow together at the same time.’ ⁴⁸ In the aftermath of these events, it became increasingly clear that a multipronged strategy had been put in place to pressurize Pakistan on multiple fronts. The aims of this strategy are to isolate Pakistan diplomatically, as well as to hype the necessity and urgency of carrying out military strikes and ignoring the Indus Water Treaty (IWT).⁴⁹ Analysts opine that the drama of ‘surgical strikes’ was hatched by Narendra Modi to conceal his failures in delivering on his political promises and to shore up his declining political support in the country.

The recent scheme that appears to include the efforts of RAW and Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security (NDS) to undermine Pakistan’s political unity and sovereignty has been through support and funding to the newly teethed “Pashtun Tahafuz Movement” (PTM)⁵⁰, which, less than a couple of months after gaining notoriety, managed to attain endorsement from none other than the Afghan President.

The strategy of adversaries is to execute a drawn out, painful, civilian-targeted and resource-exhausting form of hybrid war to achieve strategic regional goals, including, but not limited ,to disruption of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).⁵¹ It is also clear that Pakistan has been subjected to this phenomenon for a very long time – with strategies moving from kinetic approaches through sabotage and terror proxies like the TTP, to the broader spectrum approach. Cumulatively, it is challenging the country simultaneously on multiple fronts, including diplomatic coercion and isolation, security threats ranging from LOC violations, terrorism, trafficking, economic pressures and openly expressed threats to internal destabilisation and ethnic dissonance.

Our economy has been hit. Pakistan’s debt and liabilities have gone from Rs6,000 billion in 2008 to Rs30,000 billion. Pakistan’s current account deficit has gone from $3.1 billion in 2013 to $18 billion. To be sure, lending instruments are ‘weaponised’ tools within the synchronised attack package used for both “compensation and coercion”.⁵² The sectarian divide within our society has over time become our vulnerability for our adversaries to exploit to their benefit. Major sects in Pakistan have lived peacefully for several decades. The ongoing sectarian divide is around two decades old.⁵³ There are no smoking guns in hybrid warfare. Remember, our adversaries are bent upon converting a ‘normal’ economic, political or sectarian state of affairs within Pakistan into a crisis situation.⁵⁴

Options for Pakistan

It is essential to develop an analytical framework to help the nation understand and think about how to deter, mitigate and counter this threat. A typical framework could be pegged around three parts: protecting critical functions and vulnerabilities; synchronization of means and effects; and, non-linearity. Though these three parts may be separated for the purpose of analysis; these must be understood as a complete system. This national government should conduct a self-assessment of critical functions and vulnerabilities across all sectors and update it regularly. Hybrid warfare uses instruments of power that extend far beyond the military realm; therefore, national efforts should enhance threat assessment activity in all these areas.

When the nature of the game changes in this manner, it is of the utmost importance to adapt to the new rules to avoid isolation, demoralisation and eventual loss. The presence and impact of hybrid warfare is felt throughout the country. It is important for the political and military leadership to step up to the challenge collectively and strategize accordingly, in advance and in proportion to the gravity of the multi-faceted threats that we face. Reliance on kinetic measures alone to intercept non-linear threats is no longer an option. Alternate tools are essential to tackle the emerging complex and unpredictable internal and external security landscape. This also includes tackling internal pressure points like ethnic sensitivities and civil rights issues to prevent their manipulation by external elements.

Exploitation of domestic fault lines – may they be political, economic or/and societal – is the main target of hybrid warfare. The incremental approach that is followed in hybrid warfare is designed to gut a state from within. The adversary is targeting Pakistan from within through extremists and terrorists as proxies, for executing a thousand cuts strategy. The hybrid warfare strategic objective is not the annihilation of Pakistan as a state but making the country so weak that Pakistan accepts Indian bid of supremacy in South Asia and compromises her vital interests and accepts the resolution of outstanding disputes on Indian terms.

In this fake-news era, objective facts are less influential in shaping opinion than repetitive assertions of certain agenda points. Foreign policy has become a battlefield of competing narratives. Selling Pakistan’s view abroad has become increasingly difficult because of an absence of effective intellectuals for disseminating Pakistan’s rationale of national policies. The information domain has become extremely important for effectively disseminating the narrative of the country to both domestic and foreign audiences.

The questions about Pakistan’s commitment to fighting extremism and terrorism often go unanswered in academic circles. Though US officials accept the safety mechanisms that Pakistan has put in place for the protection of its nuclear installations, questions raised by academics about the safety of such installations and anti-proliferation mechanism are not effectively countered through academic arguments.⁵⁵ There is deep penetration of INGOs in our academics at the think tank level as well as at the students and teachers tier, at University level. These INGOs are pumping in money to build a constituency in these areas that speaks the language of our adversaries with regard to our national image and narrative. Pakistan’s adversaries, on one hand, are exploiting the ideological and social differences among Pakistan’s society and, on other hand, are constructing alternative narratives about Pakistan’s state and security institutions for effectively harming Pakistan’s view point. The combination of diplomatic pressure and international sanctioning of certain Pakistani individuals and organizations alleged to be involved in terrorism by the UN Security Council Committee established under UN Resolution 1267 is a reflection of the exploitation of US power by India through sustained campaign.

Efforts to have Pakistan on FATF grey listing is the most recent example of activities aimed at strangulating the country economically. Adversaries have been successfully operating hybrid warfare techniques to bleed Pakistan. They are making alliances and devising new trade routes to Afghanistan to undercut Pakistani trade. They are also using sophisticated propaganda for maligning the country and financing militants for conducting terrorist activities in the country. TTP is India’s main proxy. The Indian consulates in Jalalabad, Kandahar and Mazar-i-Sharif are working to foment unrest in Pakistan. The interests of the US and India converge on their views regarding CPEC.

One is aptly reminded of 1971. Though the term gray hybrid was not coined at that time yet, it was applied ingeniously against Pakistan. A smart mix of conventional and sub conventional forces were given training, logistic and support bases close to our borders, to fit in an internationally accepted legal framework of right to protect.

The current strategic trust deficit is blurring the line between a state of war and the state of peace. Afghan refugees spread all over Pakistan have meshed into the society providing space for militants to recruit, aggravate and mutate. This is supplemented by state sponsored lobbying campaigns unleashed by adversaries who want to isolate Pakistan internationally, besides fuelling rifts between Pakistan and some major international powers. At this moment, all available options ranging from non-state actors to ethnic and sectarian conflicts as well as information operations are utilized by inimical forces. Our national fabric, our armed forces, general population and leadership is being targeted. Influence operations are conducted to spread disinformation and falsify facts while trying to mould not only the state but also public perceptions and opinions. This is the world of fake news, truly described as the post-truth world. Pakistan is subjected to a triple gray hybrid challenge, whereby tools of the third, fourth and fifth generation are applied simultaneously.⁵⁶ The main objective of this compound warfare is to weaken the state by targeting its growth projections and causing internal dissuasion and dissension.

The gray hybrid conflict places a conceptual challenge as to how to respond. Should it be ascribed to only defence apparatus or intelligence agencies or politico diplomatic measures? Or should it be a state interagency construct? Prudent statecraft will be able to offer a holistic response to the emerging complex and unpredictable security landscape.

Theoretically speaking, hybrid war should lead to hybrid solutions. There is no definitive formula for countering a gray hybrid conflict. Such conflicts require an equally well integrated cross functional, multidimensional solution that includes a mix of: diplomacy, deterrence and use of the imaginative tools of statecraft, battle ready military strengths, influence campaigns and all conceivable means available at the disposal of the state. At the state level, an integrated approach offers the best solution in the shape of the formulation of a combined inter agency team that could coordinate diplomatic, political, military, ideological, intellectual and information activities. This holistic and comprehensive national response is predicated upon the entire government and societal components totally supported by law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

In the kinetic domain, part of the answer lies in increased readiness, special operation forces and, more importantly, an increased proactive intelligence. However, to prevent the manipulation of internal fault lines through cyber social triggers, pressure points – including human rights, religious cum sectarian, ethnic and political sensitivities – need sagacious handling and timely socio-economic measures promoting national harmony are also required more than ever. For a country like Pakistan, an ideological response forms the backbone of the its national approach. The strategic contours of Pakistan’s national strategy against gray hybrid conflicts can be summed up as prevention of manipulation by hostile actors, averting fissures and kinetic response.

Conclusion

The implosion of states essentially takes place from within due to social, economic, political, ethnic, ideological and systemic fault-lines.⁵⁷ A holistic strategy is needed to address our various fault-lines and the systemic imbalances, deprivations and repression of our own people.⁵⁸ Today we are witnessing a gray hybrid conflict being manifested through a combination of hard and soft power. It is manifested through creative chaos theories such as shock and awe, fire and fury and others. Modern warfare is characterized by calculated ambiguity, controlled chaos and perplexing complexity. It can be envisaged that the future hybrid conflict in the region shall be fought by foreign sponsored non-state actors and inserted proxies under the overall goal of influence operations so as to achieve the strategic end without the use of conventional military, especially so in our case where the environment is nuclearized. To starve off such challenges, there is need to join hands in an effort to nurture a society that promotes unity, faith, discipline, tolerance, brotherhood, mutual respect and offers a comprehensive system of justice. This should be coupled with a continuous up-gradation of our kinetic and non-kinetic interagency response mechanism. An important ingredient of our response is our coordination with our global and regional partners within the permissible limits of our national interests and priorities. Multinational frameworks, preferably utilizing existing institutions and processes, should be developed to facilitate cooperation and collaboration across borders.

Many strategists recommend that one should forget about everything “hybrid” and focus on the specificity and the interconnectedness of the faced threats. Warfare, whether ancient or modern, hybrid or not, is always complex and can hardly be subsumed into a single adjective. Any effective strategy should take this complex environment into account and find ways to navigate it through without oversimplifying the threat. Pakistan is fully capable of doing this.

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

1. Shireen M Mazari, “Hybrid warfare and centre of gravity”, The News, December 27, 2018, https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/411092-hybrid-warfare-and-centre-of-gravity
2. Ibid.
3. Dr Farrukh Saleem, “The Hybrid War”, The News, November 25, 2018, https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/397765-hybrid-warfare
4. Shireen M Mazari, “Hybrid warfare and centre of gravity”, The News, December 27, 2018, https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/411092-hybrid-warfare-and-centre-of-gravity
5. Ibid.
6. “Definition of ‘hybrid’”, Collins Dictionary, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hybrid
7. Shireen M Mazari, “Hybrid warfare and centre of gravity”, The News, December 27, 2018, https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/411092-hybrid-warfare-and-centre-of-gravity
8. Ibid.
9. “Hybrid warfare and centre of gravity”, Civil Defence League of Canada, https://civil-defence.ca/2018/12/hybrid-warfare-and-centre-of-gravity/
10. Shireen M Mazari, “Hybrid warfare and centre of gravity”.
11. Tiia Rüütmann, Hants Kipper, “Teaching Strategies for Direct and Indirect Instruction in Teaching Engineering”, Paper: Tallinn University of Technology Estonian Centre for Engineering Pedagogy Tallinn, Estonia. https://online-journals.org/index.php/i-jep/article/viewFile/1805/1930
12. Quora, “What is non-kinetic warfare?” https://www.quora.com/What-is-non-kinetic-warfare . [Technically, ‘non-kinetic’ means it doesn’t involve motion, But in warfare, ‘ kinetic’ capabilities are those that focus on destroying enemy forces through application of physical (explosive, impact, tactical manoevre) effects while ‘non-kinetic’ describes everything else].
13. Richard K Betts, “The New Threat of Mass Destruction”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 1998. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1998-01-01/new-threat-mass-destruction
14. Daniel Gouré, PhD, “Winning Future Wars: Modernization and a 21st Century Defense Industrial Base”, Heritage Foundation, https://www.heritage.org/military-strength/topical-essays/winning-future-wars-modernization-and-21st-century-defense
15. Imtiaz Alam, “Hybrid warfare in a time of hybridity”, The News, November 13, 2018. https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/399892-hybrid-warfare-in-a-time-of-hybridity
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Dave Snowden, “Chaos and Conflict”, Cognitive Edge, December 08, 2008. https://cognitive-edge.com/blog/chaos-and-conflict/
19. Ibid.
20. Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou, “The Rise and Fall of Al Qaeda”, ETH Zurich, GCSP Geneva Papers Research Series. Issue 3, September 2011. https://css.ethz.ch/en/services/digital-library/publications/publication.html/131483
21. “Israel/Lebanon/Hezbollah Conflict in 2006”, Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution S-2/1, https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/israellebanonhezbollah-conflict-2006
22. “Timeline: the Rise, Spread, and Fall of the Islamic State. Wilson Centre, ”, April 30, 2019, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/timeline-the-rise-spread-and-fall-the-islamic-state
23. “Russia will take reciprocal measures in response to new US sanctions — embassy”, Tass, May 17, 2019. https://tass.com/world/1058706
24. Joshua Geltzer, “18 Years After 9/11, We Face a New International Terrorist Threat”, Just Security, September 11, 201. https://www.justsecurity.org/66129/18-years-after-9-11-we-face-a-new-international-terrorist-threat/
25. Michael Cox. “The rise of populism and the crisis of globalisation: Brexit, Trump and beyond”, LSE Online Research, December 29, 2017. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/86880/7/Cox_Rise%20of%20populism%20published_2018.pdf
26. “BACKGROUND NOTE United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Youth Forum 2015”, 2-3 February 2015. https://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/youth2015/pdf/background_note.pdf
27. “10 things to know about the health of refugees and migrants”, January 21, 2019, World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/10-things-to-know-about-the-health-of-refugees-and-migrants
28. Ikram Sehgal, “What is hybrid warfare?”, Global Village Space, October 4, 2018. https://www.globalvillagespace.com/what-is-hybrid-warfare-ikram-sehgal/
29. “NATO Countering the Hybrid Threat”, Argonne National Library, https://www.act.nato.int/nato-countering-the-hybrid-threat
30. Dr Patrick J Cullen, Erik Reichborn-Kjenerud, “Understanding Hybrid Warfare”, Multinational Capability Development Campaign 2016-17, January 2017. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/647776/dar_mcdc_hybrid_warfare.pdf
31. Niculae Iancu, Andrei Fortuna, Cristian Barna, Mihaela Teodor, ed., “Countering Hybrid Threats: Lessons Learned from Ukraine”, NATO Science for Peace and Security Series – E: Human and Societal Dynamics (128:2016). ANIMV, https://animv.ro/en/countering-hybrid-threats-lessons-learned-from-ukraine/
32. Gregory F. Treverton , Andrew Thvedt, Alicia R. Chen, Kathy Lee & Madeline McCue, “Addressing Hybrid Threats”, Swedish Defence University, (Arkitektkopia AB, Bromma 2018).
33. Imtiaz Alam, “Hybrid warfare in a time of hybridity”, The News, November 13, 2018. https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/399892-hybrid-warfare-in-a-time-of-hybridity
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid.
36. Committee on International Conflict Resolution,” International Conflict Resolution After the Cold War”, “Conflict Resolution in a Changing World”, National Academic Press, https://www.nap.edu/read/9897/chapter/2
37. Senator Sehar Kamran, “Hybrid warfare – Emerging challenges for Pakistan”, Nation, April 29, 2018. https://nation.com.pk/29-Apr-2018/592255
38. J. Boone Bartholomees, Jr.ed., “National Security Policy and Strategy”, The U.S. Amry War College Guide to National Security Issues, (Volume II: 4^th Edition, July 2010), Website: http://www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil/
39. Senator Sehar Kamran TI, “Hybrid warfare – Emerging challenges for Pakistan, April 29, 2018. http://seharkamran.com/hybrid-warfare-emerging-challenges-pakistan/
40. “Proof of RAW involvement in terror acts given to India”, Dawn, July 22, 2009, https://www.dawn.com/news/849730
41. Irfan Haider, Mateen Haider, “Dossiers of Indian hand in terrorism handed over to UN chief: Aziz”, Dawn, October 02, 2015. https://www.dawn.com/news/1210439
42. Senator Sehar Kamran TI, “Hybrid warfare – Emerging challenges for Pakistan”, Centre for Pakistan and Gulf Studies, April 29, 2019. https://cpakgulf.org/2018/05/03/hybrid-warfare-emerging-challenges-for-pakistan/
43. “Ex-Indian Army chief admits sponsoring terrorism in Balochistan”, News, October 21, 2013. https://www.thenews.com.pk/archive/print/461946-ex-indian-army-chief-admits-sponsoring-terrorism-in-balochistan
44. Abdul Rasool Syed, “Doval doctrine & covert operations”, Daily Times, March 18, 2019. https://dailytimes.com.pk/366415/doval-doctrine-covert-operations/
45. Abdul Rasool Syed,” Baluchistan: The heart of Ajit Doval doctrine”, Global Village Space, March 13, 2019. https://www.globalvillagespace.com/baluchistan-the-heart-of-ajit-doval-doctrine/
46. Senator Sehar Kamran, “Hybrid warfare – Emerging challenges for Pakistan” The Nation, April 28, 2018. https://nation.com.pk/29-Apr-2018/592255
47. “What did Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav say in his latest confessional video?”, Dawn, June 22, 2017. https://www.dawn.com/news/1341090
48. “Indus Treaty: Blood and water cannot flow together, says PM Modi after meeting”, India Today, https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/indus-waters-treaty-meeting-narendra-modi-pakistan-343297-2016-09-26
49. Jeffrey Gettleman.” India Threatens a New Weapon Against Pakistan: Water”, New York Times, February. 21, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/world/asia/india-pakistan-water-kashmir.html
50. Senator Sehar Kamran, “Hybrid warfare – Emerging challenges for Pakistan” The Nation, April 28, 2018. https://nation.com.pk/29-Apr-2018/592255
51. Ibid.
52. Dr Farrukh Saleem, “The Hybrid War”, The News, November 25, 2018. https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/397765-hybrid-warfare
53. Senator Sehar Kamran, “Hybrid warfare – Emerging challenges for Pakistan” The Nation, April 28, 2018. https://nation.com.pk/29-Apr-2018/592255
54. Ibid.
55. “Relevance of hybrid warfare to Pakistan”, Pakistan Defence, February 25, 2017. https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/relevance-of-hybrid-warfare-to-pakistan.480164/ [Discussion o n ‘Pakistan’s Internal Security’ started by FalconsForPeace,].
56. General Zubair Mahmood Hayat (Retd), Then Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Inaugural Speech at Conference “Compound Hybrid and Gray Zone Threats to Pakistan,   organized by Centre for Global and Strategic Centere, Islamabad, June 08, 2018, IDEAS 2018, https://cgss.com.pk/publication/Publications/pdf/Compound-Hybrid-Gray-Threats-to-Pakistan.pdf
57. Ibid.
58. Ibid.