Fragmented frontiers: three approaches to understanding irregular warfare

This article surveys current thinking, both academic and doctrinal, on the subject of irregular warfare. It argues that from a western perspective the debate has essentially resulted in three competing forms of understanding, what this paper terms the maximal, traditional, and competition-disruption models. Conceptually, all have certain strengths but also a number of highly significant weaknesses. It nevertheless proposes that the last of these, particularly when articulated as a form of ‘strategic disruption’, offers the most coherent vision of irregular warfare. Even then, significant gaps in reasoning still exist. Ultimately, the ability of western thinkers and doctrine writers to agree a common understanding of irregular warfare remains an inherently fragile endeavor.