Hybrid War, the Gray Zone, and the Failure of American Strategic Thinking

“Hybrid War, the Gray Zone, and the Failure of American Strategic Thinking”

Speakers: Stoker, D. (Atlas Organization); Whiteside, C. (Naval Postgraduate School)

Date: 24 January 2020

Speaker Session Preview

SMA hosted a speaker session presented by Dr. Donald Stoker (Atlas Organization) and Dr. Craig Whiteside (Naval Postgraduate School) as a part of its SMA General Speaker Series. During their brief, Dr. Stoker and Dr. Whiteside argued that US strategists and decision makers do not know how to think about war, which results in in either defeat or “forever wars.” The speakers offered four primary arguments that dispute the use of the terms “hybrid war” and “gray zone.” Hybrid war and gray zone: 1) are “bad theory,” 2) are based on bad or forgotten history, 3) propagate a dangerous tendency to confuse war and peace, and 4) undermine US political and strategic thinking. Definitions of hybrid war encompass nearly every characteristic of war, and across the literature, writers describe it as a new kind of warfare, a new kind of threat. It is unclear what hybridists are trying to argue, Dr. Stoker and Dr. Whiteside stated. Hybridists tend to use means- and methods-based arguments. Moreover, hybrid war describes the largely tactical nature of war, but does not give us a new form of war. A focus on hybrid war also produces the tacticization of strategy. Dr. Stoker and Dr. Whiteside then explained that all warfare blends conventional and irregular forces, and war’s very nature is to create ambiguity, seize the initiative, and paralyze the enemy. Regarding the gray zone, the speakers stated that there is no space between peace and war, arguing that such a gray zone does not exist. This is “bad theory” because it provides no logical, universally applicable foundation for analysis. It does not clarify; it confuses. Furthermore, they stated that countries can use subversion when they are at war or not. The term gray zone destroys one’s understanding of the difference between and war. The result is that US policy and strategy is often built on flawed ideas. The alternative, according to Dr. Whiteside and Dr. Stoker, is to return basic principles of strategic analysis and question any new term, theory, or claim. The speakers explained that to have a concrete basis for analysis, we must identify if the objective is to overthrow the enemy (i.e., unlimited war) or something else (i.e., limited war). They predicted that the US will see less usage of the terms hybridization and gray zone in the future as we return to great power competition. Dr. Stoker and Dr. Whiteside concluded by stating that US decision makers and strategists need to reattach the importance of distinguishing war from peace.

Speaker Session Audio Recording

Unfortunately, an audio recording of this speaker session is not available due to technical difficulties.