Year: 2025
Type: article
Abstract: This article surveys current thinking, both academic and doctrinal, on the subject of irregular warfare. It argues that from a western perspective the debate has essentially resulted in three competing forms of understanding, what this paper terms the maximal, traditional, and competition-disruption models. Conceptually, all have certain strengths but also a number of highly significant weaknesses. It nevertheless proposes that the last of these, particularly when articulated as a form of ‘strategic disruption’, offers the most coherent vision of irregular warfare. Even then, significant gaps in reasoning still exist. Ultimately, the ability of western thinkers and doctrine writers to agree a common understanding of irregular warfare remains an inherently fragile endeavor.
Source: Small Wars and Insurgencies
Author: Christian Tripodi
Institution: Columbia University
Language: English
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
OpenAlex ID: W4407969493