Hybrid warfare and

Pakistan
Hybrid war is the latest buzzword in the corridors of power. Is
Pakistan really in the throes of a fifth generation war?

P olitical pundits around the globe see hybrid warfare as a distinct

21st century phenomenon in terms of the anticipated frequency of
the conflict in the century than previously. The warfare is not new.
Frank G. Hoffman traces the origin of hybrid conflict back to 431 BCE
when Sparta went to war with Athens in the famous Peloponnesian
War, which historian Thucydides wrote firsthand in his account
titled The History of the Peloponnesian War. The warfare remained in
vogue during 20th century. Hybrid war is the latest buzzword in the
corridors of power in Pakistan.
Hybrid warfare is a blend of conventional, unconventional and
irregular warfare. It also incorporates terrorist acts, indiscriminate
violence, criminal disorder and cyber warfare, which is an "attempt
to damage another nation’s computers or information networks
through, for example, computer viruses or denial-of-service attacks,"
as defined by RAND Corporation. Multinational Capability
Development Campaign (MCDC)’s project document
titled Understanding Hybrid Warfare defines hybrid warfare as "the
synchronized use of multiple instruments of power tailored to specific
vulnerabilities across the full spectrum of societal functions to achieve
synergistic effects". Add the battle of ideas, critical of power brokers,
fought in the mainstream electronic and print media and social media,
hybrid warfare becomes synonymous with the so-called ‘fifth
generation warfare’ in our context.
Hybrid war is conducted by both state and non-state actors. In the
warfare, state actors evade detection. They employ proxies. This
helps them to deny plausibly their complicity in an eventuality. The
utility of the hybrid conflict stems from the fact that the warfare does
not lead to conventional war from an adversary state. The war is
aimed to exploit the vulnerabilities of an adversary. These
vulnerabilities cut across a wide range of socio-economic, political,
informational and military spectrums. One opinion is that Pakistan is
in the throes of a hybrid conflict.
The understanding is that the country is facing three types of threat.
First is the conventional threat. India, the arch rival, falls in this
category. Second threat stems from terrorists, Taliban and others of
their ilk. Third type of threat is the hybrid warfare. The understanding
goes that because Pakistan is a nuclear power, India would not make
any mistake of attacking the former. Similarly, irregular warfare,
launched by the non-state actors, has been neutralized. The
understanding is that the threat of hybrid war is active.
Pakistan, at times, remains vulnerable on religious, sectarian, ethno
nationalistic and political fronts. The understanding in the upper
echelons of power seems to be that Pakistan’s regional adversaries
are the architects of whatsoever untoward happens on these fronts.
Attack on Chinese consulate in Karachi last November, the
assassination of Ali Raza Abidi in December and armed opposition to
the execution of CPEC in parts of Balochistan and terrorist attack on
FC training centre Loralai in January 2019 are all presented as
manifestations of hybrid warfare inside the country.
One strongly held belief by a coterie of people in Pakistan is that the
‘fifth generation warfare’ targets human mind. Fake news is fed into
minds of people in order to incite them against their own country, the
argument runs. The problem with this understanding is that it is
nearly impossible to distinguish between what is a genuine critique in
a democracy and what falls within the ambit of sowing hatred and
spewing venom against the state. What is more problematic is how
one defines the state. Is criticism against institutions with political
roles equivalent to criticism against the state?
Critical commentators and politically aware citizens take exception to
the so-called fifth generation war mantra as an excuse to silence
genuine critique on Pakistan security policies and the country’s slide
into the dark alley of authoritarianism, masquerading behind the
democratic façade. It is the social media that is out of bounds of the
state’s jurisdiction in the ‘fifth generation warfare’.
State finds itself consistently outmaneuvered in the media space by
critical activists working with a cellphone and an Internet connection.
It is in the battle of narratives that state is at the receiving end. The
state has managed to stifle critical voices and commentary in
electronic media and, to a certain extent, in print media too. One
medium that is still challenging the ‘security state’ narrative is social
media which has been giving vent to people’s pent up emotions.
Pakistani social media activists, living in Pakistan and especially
abroad, are accused of being on the payroll of hostile countries. It is
no coincidence that when these activists are arrested their social
media accounts are sniffed around.
Is hybrid war real or is it merely a bogey to distract attention from
genuine causes and discredit them by branding them as voices of the
enemy? Either way, we need an inside out approach to deal with our
multiple challenges. A typical security state approach has failed us
miserably!