FULLTEXT01

TACTICAL THOUGHT
2014 September 29 th
Result and conclusions
The description is a pedominantly explanatory description. The potential of explaining
content covers aspects such as strategy, operational art and tactics. Fighting power
factors are covered e.g. physical and conceptual. The description explains
characteristics from manipulation to threats of weapons of mass destructions (WMD),
but focuses on the lower end of violence (subversion). Attitude aspects are included.
Participating actors are described with a focus on the adversary. The description leans
primarily on the political/civilian focus of the phenomena. The descriptions are
comprehensive and have an explanatory articulation, but need pre-understanding or
complementary sub-definitions of several terms. KilCullan’s descriptions might be seen
as an argument for a new form of threats and enemies, focusing on the lower end of the
“Hybrid Warfare School”.
James Kiras
James Kiras defines Irregular Warfare in 2008 as; “the use of violence by sub-state
actors or groups within states for political purposes of achieving power, control and
legitimacy, using unorthodox or unconventional approaches to warfare owing to a
fundamental weakness in resources or capabilities”. 475 The definition addresses
“violence” not specifying any level, thus, in theory, leaving open a field from civil
disturbances to nuclear attacks. Only the sub-state actors or groups know or can use
Irregular Warfare, according to the above definition; it is “their violence”. The character
of violence is left to the reader, with no further explanation than, the approaches are
“unorthodox” or “unconventional”. This form of explanation simply moves the
definition problem from certain words to others; diffuse words such as “irregular” are
changed to words e.g. “unorthodox” or “unconventional”. Kiras later defines five
categories of Irregular Warfare as coup d’état, terrorism, revolution, insurgency and
Civil War. 476 An earlier definition of Irregular Warfare by James Kiras from 2002 and
2007, is outlined by the following working definition; “Irregular Warfare is the
umbrella term used to describe violence used by sub state actors and including different
forms, including terrorism and insurgency”. 477 Kiras defines terrorism as “the sustained
use of violence against symbolic or civilian targets by small groups for political
purposes, by inspiring fear, drawing widespread attention to a political grievance, and/or
provoking a draconian or unsustainable response”.
Thus terrorism does not by itself result in a political change, which is the sign and
strategy of an Insurgency activity, according to Kiras. 478 Principal differences between
Irregular and Conventional War are that the latter involves more or less symmetrical
adversaries, in equipment, training and doctrine. In an Insurgency, the adversaries are
asymmetric and weaker, almost always a sub-state group attempting to bring about
political change by administrating and fighting more effectively than its state-based foe,
475 Jordan, David, Kiras, James D., Lonesdale, David J., Speller, Ian, Tuck, Christopher and Walton, Dale
C., Understanding Modern Warfare, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 232.
476 Ibid. p. 232.
477 Baylis, John, Cohen, Eliot, Gray, Colin S., Wirtz, James, Strategy in the Contemporary World (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 164-167.
478 Bylis at al, Strategy in the Contemporary World (2007), p. 165.
60