Not Synonymous, but Substitutional: Conventional, Asymmetric, and Hybrid Warfare within the Framework of Battlefield Functions

Abstract

Although concepts related to conventional warfare and irregular warfare have been used in academic literature for a long time, the latter concept is intertwined closely with concepts such as asymmetric warfare, hybrid warfare, special warfare, unconventional warfare, guerrilla warfare, insurgency, anarchism, psychological warfare, and terrorism, all of which have near-synonymous meanings. The irregularity in the usage of many concepts within the scope of irregular war can be eliminated, at least to some extent, via inferences from concepts on which a consensus has been reached. On the other hand, it is similar to the contents of new definitions such as hybrid warfare, non-linear warfare, and fourth-generation warfare in terms of the methods used. This complex situation regarding the definition brings about deep debates on the meaning attributed to the concept. The main claim of this research is that the concepts of conventional, asymmetric, and hybrid warfare are not synonymous concepts that can replace each other but concepts that can be used in coordination in the universe of irregular wars. In this context, this research examines the relationship between these substitutional concepts within the framework of battlefield functional areas.

Keywords

• international security
• battlefield functions
• conventional warfare
• irregular warfare
• conceptual analysis