Citation

Ucko DH, Marks TA. Contemp. Secur. Policy 2018; 39(2): 206-233.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2018, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/13523260.2018.1432922

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The malaise that the United States, and the West, have experienced in recent campaigns stems in large part from unclear thinking about war, its political essence, and the strategies needed to join the two. Instead, analysis and response are predicated on entrenched theoretical concepts with limited practical utility. The inadequacy of understanding has spawned new, and not so new, terms to capture unanticipated trends, starting with the re-discovery of "insurgency" and "counterinsurgency" and leading to discussion of "hybrid threats" and "gray-zone" operations. New terminology can help, but the change must go deeper. Challenging analytical orthodoxy, this article sets out a unifying approach for the study of political violence, or more accurately: violent politics. It provides a conceptual foundation that helps to make sense of recent shifts in warfare. In effect, it offers sorely needed theoretical insights into the nature of strategy and guides the process of responding to nontraditional threats.

Language: en

Keywords

counterinsurgency; gray zone; hybrid; Strategy; terrorism