Advertisement

The Missing Link: Civil-Military Cooperation and Hybrid Wars

  • Sebastian Rinelli
  • Isabelle Duyvesteyn
Chapter

Abstract

Despite obvious overlap, there is very limited scholarship that has explored the potential cross-fertilisation between the concepts of civil-military cooperation (CIMIC) and hybrid warfare. Both concepts share the idea of putting the civilian domain centre stage in military strategic thinking. In contrast to civil-military relations, which looks at the relation between the military and society, CIMIC looks at the civilian domain as part of the operational theatre of military forces. Essential in the development of CIMIC have been national and international norms, laws, and values, which have driven the increasing merger of the civilian and military domains and advanced population-centric approaches to intervention. This population-centric approach is shared by existing conceptualisations of hybrid warfare, where the operational focus also hinges on targeting the civilian domain as the strategic fulcrum.

References

  1. Akkoc, R. 2014. Serving Russian Soldiers on Leave Fighting Ukrainian Troops Alongside Rebels, pro-Russian Separatist Leader Says. The Telegraph. [Online]. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/angela-merkel/11060559/Serving-Russian-soldiers-on-leave-fighting-Ukrainian-troops-alongside-rebels-pro-Russian-separatist-leader-says.html. 28 Aug 2014 [17 Feb 2017].
  2. Ambrosio, T. 2016. The Rhetoric of Irredentism: The Russian Federation’s Perception Management Campaign and the Annexation of Crimea. Small Wars & Insurgencies 27 (3): 467–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arreguín-Toft, Ivan. 2001. How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict. International Security 26 (1): 93–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ———. 2005. How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ———. 2012. Contemporary Asymmetric Conflict Theory in Historical Perspective. Terrorism and Political Violence 24 (4): 635–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Asmussen, J., S. Hansen, and J. Meiser. 2015. Hybride Kriegsführung – eine neue Herausforderung? Kieler Analysen zur Sicherheitspolitik Nr. 43.Google Scholar
  7. von Benda-Beckmann, F., K. von Benda-Beckmann, and A. Griffiths. 2009. Space and Legal Pluralism: An Introduction. In Spatializing Law: An Anthropological Geography of Law in Society, ed. F. von Benda-Beckmann, K. von Benda-Beckmann, and A. Griffiths, 1–30. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  8. British Broadcasting Cooperation (BBC). 2014. Ukraine Crisis: Timeline. [Online]. Available from: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26248275. Accessed 10 Dec 2016.
  9. Brocades Zaalberg, T.W. 2006. Countering Insurgent-Terrorism: Why NATO Chose the Wrong Historical Foundation for CIMIC. Small Wars and Insurgencies 17 (4): 399–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ———. 2008. The Historical Origins of Civil-Military Cooperation. In Managing Civil-Military: A 24/7 Joint Effort for Stability, ed. S. Rietjens and M. Bollen, 5–25. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  11. Ven Bruusgaard, K. 2016. Russian Strategic Deterrence. Survival 58 (4): 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chabal, P., and J.-P. Daloz. 1999. Africa Works: Disorder as Political Instrument. Oxford: James Currey.Google Scholar
  13. von Clausewitz, C. 1989. On War. Ed. and Trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. de Coning, C. 2016. Civil-Military Interaction: Rationale, Possibilities and Limitations. In Effective Civil-Military Interaction in Peace Operations: Theory and Practice, ed. G. Lucius and S. Rietjens, 11–28. Unknown: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daloz, J.-P. 2003. “Big Men” in Sub-Saharan Africa: How Elites Accumulate Positions and Resources. Comparative Sociology 2 (1): 271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duffield, M. 2001. Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  17. Duyvesteyn, I. 2009. The Effectiveness of Intervention Instruments in Armed Conflict; Conflict Resolution Is the Only Solution? In Peace, Security and Development in an Era of Globalization; A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Process of Peace Building After Armed Conflict, ed. G. Molier and E. Nieuwenhuys, 99–128. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  18. Egnell, R. 2013. Civil-Military Coordination for Operational Effectiveness: Towards a Measured Approach. Small Wars & Insurgencies 24 (2): 237–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. EU Commission. 2016. Security: EU Strengthens Response to Hybrid Threats. [Press Release]. Available from: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1227_en.htm. 7 Feb 2017.
  20. Fettweis, C.J. 2015. Misreading the Enemy. Survival 57 (5): 149–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gerasimov, V. 2016[2013]. The Value of Science Is in the Foresight: New Challenges Demand Rethinking the Forms and Methods of Carrying Out Combat Operations. Military Review 96 (1): 23–29.Google Scholar
  22. Giles, K. 2016. Russia’s ‘New’ Tools for Confronting the West Continuity and Innovation in Moscow’s Exercise of Power. Chatham House Research Paper. [Online]. Available from: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/2016-03-russia-new-tools-giles.pdf. Accessed 7 Feb 2017.
  23. Hoffman, F.G. 2007. Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars. Arlington: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 2009. Hybrid Warfare and Challenges. Joint Force Quarterly 52: 34–39.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 2010. ‘Hybrid Threats’: Neither Omnipotent Nor Unbeatable. Orbis (Summer): 441–455.Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, D. 2015. Russia’s Approach to Conflict: Implications for NATO’s Deterrence and Defence. In NATO’s Response to Hybrid Threats, ed. G. Lasconjarias and J.A. Larsen, 137–160. Rome: NATO Defense College.Google Scholar
  27. Jonsson, O., and R. Seely. 2015. Russian Full-Spectrum Conflict: An Appraisal After Ukraine. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies 28 (1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lanoszka, A. 2016. Russian Hybrid Warfare and Extended Deterrence in Eastern Europe. International Affairs 92 (1): 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lasconjarias, G., and J.A. Larsen. 2015. Introduction: A New Way of Warfare. In NATO’s Response to Hybrid Threats, ed. G. Lasconjarias and J.A. Larsen, 1–13. Rome: NATO Defense College.Google Scholar
  30. Lemay-Hébert, N. 2013. Critical Debates on Liberal Peacebuilding. Civil Wars 15 (2): 242–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lucius, G., and S. Rietjens, eds. 2016. Effective Civil-Military Interaction in Peace Operations: Theory and Practice, 1–10. Unknown: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Luttwak, E. 1987. Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Murray, W. 2012. Conclusion: What the Past Suggests. In Hybrid Warfare: Fighting Complex Opponents from the Ancient World to the Present, ed. W. Murray and P.R. Mansoor, 289–307. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Murray, W., and P.R. Mansoor, eds. 2012. Hybrid Warfare: Fighting Complex Opponents from the Ancient World to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. NATO. 2010. BI-SC Input to a New NATO Capstone Concept for the Military Contribution to Countering Hybrid Threats. [Online]. Available from: http://www.act.nato.int/images/stories/events/2010/20100826_bi-sc_cht.pdf. Accessed 7 Feb 2017.
  36. ———. 2012. BI-SC Civil-Military Co-Operation Functional Planning Guide. [Online]. Available from: http://www.cimic-coe.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Civil-Military_Co-Operation_Functional_Planning_Guide.pdf. Accessed 7 Feb 2017.
  37. ———. 2013. AJP-3.4.9(A) Allied Joint Doctrine for Civil-Military Cooperation. [Online]. Available from: http://www.cimic-coe.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/AJP-3.4.9-EDA-V1-E1.pdf. Accessed 7 Feb 2017.
  38. ———. 2014a. Hybrid War – Hybrid Response. [Online]. Available from: http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2014/Russia-Ukraine-Nato-crisis/Russia-Ukraine-crisis-war/EN/index.htm. Accessed 7 Feb 2017.
  39. ———. 2014b. MC 0411/2: NATO Military Policy on Civil-Military Cooperation (CIMIC) and Civil-Military Interaction (CMI). Brussels: North Atlantic Military Committee.Google Scholar
  40. ———. 2016. NATO Countering the Hybrid Threat. [Press Release]. Available from: http://www.act.nato.int/nato-countering-the-hybrid-threat. Accessed 17 Feb 2017.
  41. Nemeth, W. 2002. Future War and Chechnya: A Case for Hybrid Warfare. Master’s Thesis, US Naval Postgraduate School. [Online]. Available from: http://calhoun.nps.edu/handle/10945/5865. Accessed 15 Jan 2017.
  42. Pindják, P. 2015. Optimizing Armed Forces Capabilities for Hybrid Warfare – New Challenge for Slovak Armed Forces. INCAS BULLETIN 7 (3): 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Polese, A., R. Kevlihan, and D. Beacháin. 2016. Introduction: Hybrid Warfare in post-Soviet Spaces, Is There a Logic Behind? Small Wars & Insurgencies 27 (3): 361–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reisinger, H., and A. Golts. 2015. Russia’s Hybrid Warfare: Waging War Below the Radar of Traditional Collective Defence. In NATO’s Response to Hybrid Threats, ed. G. Lasconjarias and J.A. Larsen, 113–136. Rome: NATO Defense College.Google Scholar
  45. Renz, B. 2016. Russia and ‘Hybrid Warfare’. Contemporary Politics 22 (3): 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rietjens, S. 2008. Managing Civil-Military Cooperation. Experiences from the Dutch Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan. Armed Forces & Society 34 (2): 173–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rietjens, S., and G. Lucius. 2016. Getting Better at Civil-Military Interaction. In Effective Civil-Military Interaction in Peace Operations: Theory and Practice, ed. G. Lucius and S. Rietjens, 1–10. Unknown: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Rosaldo, R. 2005. Foreword. In Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving Modernity, ed. N.G. Canclini, xi–xvii. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  49. Schroefl, Josef, and Stuart Kaufman. 2014. Hybrid Actors, Tactical Variety: Rethinking Asymmetric and Hybrid War. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 37 (10): 862–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schuller, K. 2016. Wer bricht den Waffenstillstand im Donbass? Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. [Online]. Available from: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/europa/krieg-in-der-ostukraine-wer-bricht-den-waffenstillstand-14375280.html. Accessed 14 Aug 2016.
  51. Simão, L. 2016. The Ukrainian Conflict in Russian Foreign Policy: Rethinking the Interconnections Between Domestic and Foreign Policy Strategies. Small Wars & Insurgencies 27 (3): 491–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Spear, J., and P. Williams, eds. 2012. Security and Development in Global Politics: A Critical Comparison. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Tenenbaum, E. 2015. Hybrid Warfare in the Strategic Spectrum: An Historical Assessment. In NATO’s Response to Hybrid Threats, ed. G. Lasconjarias and J.A. Larsen, 95–112. Rome: NATO Defense College.Google Scholar
  54. US Army. 2007. Counterinsurgency Field Manual. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Utas, M. 2012. Introduction: Bigmanity and Network Governance in African Conflicts. In African Conflicts and Informal Power, ed. M. Utas, 1–31. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  56. Worrall, J. 2014. Bringing the Soil Back in: Control and Territoriality in Western and Non-Western COIN. In The New Counter-Insurgency Era in Critical Perspective, ed. C.W. Gventer, D.M. Jones, and M.L.R. Smith, 127–143. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zupančič, R. 2015. Civil-Military Cooperation in Conflict and Post-Conflict Zones: Needed Marriage Also for Small States? The Case Study of Slovenian Armed Forces in Kosovo and Afghanistan. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies 28 (3): 462–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Rinelli
    • 1
  • Isabelle Duyvesteyn
    • 2
  1. 1.NATO Civil-Military Cooperation Centre of ExcellenceThe HagueThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Leiden University, Institute of HistoryLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations