Episode 119 discusses irregular warfare in the Indo-Pacific with Dr. Sean McFate, and COL Ed Croot.
Our guests discuss the evolving landscape of irregular warfare. They critique the conventional vs. irregular warfare paradigm, introduce the concept of ‘sneaky war,’ and explore the importance of unconventional strategies in countering global adversaries like China. Finally the conversation delves into the interplay between conventional and irregular tactics, the rise of mercenaries like the Wagner Group, and strategies to counter disinformation.
Dr. Sean McFate is an author, novelist, and national security expert. He holds three professorships: Georgetown University, National Defense University, and Syracuse University. His diverse career includes roles as a U.S. Army paratrooper, private military contractor, and international business executive, with extensive experience in conflict zones and political risk consulting. McFate has written critically acclaimed non-fiction, including The New Rules of War.
COL Ed Croot is an active-duty army officer currently serving in Ft Liberty. Ed has years of experience serving the special operations and intelligence communities across the Middle East and Indo-Pacific. Ed has served from the tactical to the strategic levels of command and most recently as the Operations Director for the Special Operations Command – Pacific.
Matthew Moellering and Don Edwards are the hosts for Episode 119. Please reach out to them with any questions about this episode or the Irregular Warfare Podcast.
The Irregular Warfare Podcast is a production of the Irregular Warfare Initiative (IWI). We are a team of volunteers dedicated to bridging the gap between scholars and practitioners in the field of irregular warfare. IWI generates written and audio content, coordinates events for the IW community, and hosts critical thinkers in the field of irregular warfare as IWI fellows. You can follow and engage with us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, or LinkedIn.
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter for access to our written content, upcoming community events, and other resources.
Bill Moore says
Some of Sean’s comments were insightful, but I also thought he sometimes came across as contradictory. I agree strongly with his statement that debates over defining IW have produced nothing of value. He nailed it when he said we just need to view it as conflict. Our task is defining our strategic objectives in this conflict and the strategy for achieving them. It may employ the options from all the DIMEFIL actors, or only one. It may appear conventional, or it may be a shadow war, or, in Sean’s terms, a sneaky war. However, where I disagree with Sean is his claim that the Russian-Ukraine war is not conventional. It certainly involves more than conventional warfare. The original aim of the conventional forces focused on capturing the capital of Ukraine (or defending it) and now on destroying each other’s armed forces. That is as conventional as you can get, BUT there is much more at play than the conventional warfare aspect of this conflict.
I think Ed is correct that the military, and especially SOF, learned many valuable and relevant lessons from our 20 years plus war with terrorist organizations. Our ability to network with interagency partners, allies, and other nations, and non-state actors to achieve our objectives are critical capabilities in the current competition. His focus on preparing the environment to provide our national leaders options is critical, BUT we have much work to do to determine what preparing the environment means. I have witnessed years of wasted effort supposedly preparing the environment, and we have little to show for it. We need mature thinking in this area and prioritized efforts. Not to mention permissions. Ed also said he had an epiphany regarding phase zero when he realized the CCP was in phase 2, seizing the initiative. Phase Zero for SOF was never as limited as it was for the conventional forces, and fortunately, that phasing construct was removed from doctrine because seniors realized it was a strait jacket intellectually. The key takeaway is the CCP, Russians, Iranians, and terrorist organizations are conducting a range of operations, mostly sneaky warfare, to seize the initiative. We must get out of the mindset we’re in peace setting conditions for a potential war. We’re in conflict now and must strive to achieve the initiative and ultimately win without our high-end conventional forces clashing.