Shahidullah 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 begun, 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 colour revolutions 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 Mujib’s six-point plan, the genocide and refugees narrative, training the Mukti Bahini, the Indo-Soviet ‘Friendship Treaty’) all laid the ground for the coup de grace of Indian military intervention in the (erstwhile) 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, KP’s tribal belt [former FATA region], Gilgit –Baltistan and the China –Pakistan Economic Corridor. Pakistan has developed a credible capability 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. Few Indian media personalities enjoy the ‘freedom’ to be critical of their country or their current government. Meanwhile, Pakistan print and electronic media speak 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. There are numerous other ‘agents of influence’ who are used to develop and project an anti-Pakistan narrative. Many foreign funded and directed non-governmental organizations have been ubiquitous in developing negative critiques about Pakistan within Pakistan. Some among our local elite are co-opted by these organizations through jobs, travel and other perks. No wonder there has been such a hue and cry about the long overdue diligence conducted recently by the government and the foreign office of these organizations. The hybrid campaign incorporates some ethnic and religious groups. Foreign sponsorship of the Balochistan Liberation Army and the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan is well established. Some others need to be subjected to close scrutiny. Any foreign funding of any Pakistani organization ought to be declared and officially approved. Receipt of undeclared foreign payments should be a crime. This is an international norm, (Surely, the Financial Action Task Force will approve.)
Pakistan’s agencies must be equipped with the most advanced surveillance and data collection techniques to detect future Jadhevs or Osamas and neutralize any ‘black ops’, ‘false-flag’ or infiltration operations planned by enemy agencies. It must possess the cyber capability to defend its crucial command and control systems and its industrials and transport infrastructure against enemy attack. But to deter such attack, Pakistan must also have the capability for offensive cyber action. The technologies for waging a “comprehensive” conflict and “new generation warfare” are being actively developed by every significant State. Pakistan cannot afford to be left behind. To acquire credible capacity to defend against and repel hybrid wars, it will need to make dedicated efforts, comparable to those deployed to develop its nuclear and missile programmes. Pakistan and other responsible nations should take an initiative in relevant international forums to secure a global ban or restrictions on dangerous elements of hybrid warfare. To conclude, we must acknowledge this war as a dangerous reality. We should focus more on the effects these attacks have, rather than the way in which these are conducted. We need to develop more effective mechanisms for private-public cooperation, establishing relationships that help us to anticipate, avoid, defeat or recover from hybrid attacks. We must overcome the often adversarial relationship between business and government to form effective and mutually-supportive partnerships. This is the way forward to combat hybrid warfare successfully.
—The writer is an Assistant Commissioner serving in Government of KP.
