Shahidulllah Shahid
HYBRID Warfare came to prominence in the 21st century, the “Age of Globalization” that has opened up many new technical and communication options and shrunk distances. Every age has its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions. Russian General Gerasimov holds that “In the 21st century we have seen a tendency towards blurring the lines between the states of war and peace. Wars are no longer declared and, having beg-un, proceed according to an unfamiliar template”.
The US definition characterizes Hybrid Warfare as “Synchronized use of multiple instruments of power tailored to specific vulnerabilities across the full spectrum of societal functions to achieve synergistic effects.” Russian scholar Korybko, on the other hand, says “Hybrid Wars can be defined as “externally provoked identity conflicts, which exploit historical, ethnic, religious, socio-economic, and geographic differences within geostrategic transit states through the phased transition from Color Revo-lutions to Unconventional Wars in order to disrupt, control, or influence multipolar transnational connective infrastructure projects by means of Regime Tweaking, Regime Change, and/or Regime Reboot.
Hybrid warfare employs means other than conventional military troops, tactics and strategies, to include the employment of irregular military and paramilitary forces like guerrillas, paramilitaries, etc. Use of non-violent means by civilian institutions include psychological assaults using ethnic, religious or national vulnerabilities, provocateurs operating behind enemy lines, economic assaults through sanctions, boycotts and punitive tariffs so as to weaken the enemy economy, cyber assaults at elections and referendums, use of big data for manipulation of referendums like Brexit and the US elections and a vast selection of propaganda warfare via electronic and social media, TV channels and publications. Diplomacy is as much involved into this new type of warfare as are fake news.
The relative novelty of hybrid warfare today 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. Conducted by both state and non-state actors Hybrid warfare typically tailored to remain below obvious detection and response thresholds, and often relies on the speed, volume and ubiquity of digital technology that characterizes the present information age. Already prevalent and widespread in the world and in Pakistan Hybrid Warfare is likely to grow as a challenge. For us it is important to understand its character, its underlying ideology and the modus operandi to counter it.
Pakistan was the target of hybrid or indirect war in 1971. New Delhi’s hybrid strategy (promotion of Mu-jib’s six-point plan, the genocide and refugees narrative, training the Mukti Ba-hini, the Indo-Soviet ‘Frie-ndship Treaty’) all laid the ground for the coup de grace of Indian military intervention in East Pakistan.
Since then, Pakistan has been the target of multiple ‘hybrid’ campaigns. Exaggerated proliferation concerns and coercive diplomacy were utilized to hold back Pakistan’s nuclear and missile programmes. The legitimacy of the Kashmiri freedom struggle was eroded by its projection as terrorism including through false-flag operations, infiltration of militant Kashmiri groups and concerted propaganda. The onus for |America’s colossal military and political failure in Afghanistan was ascribed to alleged Afghan Taliban ‘safe havens’ in Pakistan. The Pakistan Army and the ISI remain a special focus of propaganda and fake news. Today the hybrid war against Pakistan is focused on Balochistan, the former Fata region, Gilgit –Balti-stan and the China –Pakis-tan Economic Corridor. Pakistan has developed credible capabilities to deter nuclear and conventional aggression. However, it remains very vulnerable to hybrid warfare. Pakistan’s adversaries enjoy considerable prowess in IT, cyber, media projection and narrative construction, including ‘fake news’ subversion and sabotage, and sponsorship of terrorism including ‘false-flag’ operations.
The main modality of this ‘indirect war’ against Pakistan is the media including social media. Very few Indian media personalities enjoy the ‘freedom’ to be critical of their country or their current government. Meanwhile, Pakistan print and electronic media speaks with many voices. There is little space for pro-Pakistani narratives in the Western media. An army of Indian trolls has been recruited to malign Pakistan on the internet.
– The writer is an Assist-ant Commissioner (UT) serving in Government of KP. Twitter:
@shahidullahpms.
