Irregular warfare is a nebulous term that very much resembles the polycephalic hydra of Greek mythology. The manipulation of international law and norms to secure regional hegemony, use of unmarked soldiers and equipment to occupy the territory of another nation, highly violent transnational militia and terror networks, recurring cyberattacks, threats to critical infrastructure, and everything in between fall within the domain of irregular warfare. Ultimately, what binds this near-infinite array of actors is a wish to fight with just enough plausible deniability built into their respective deeds to forestall the escalation of a conflict to the level of traditional conventional or nuclear war, typically involving the use of soldiers, tanks, ships, planes, and nuclear arms to occupy territory or otherwise impose political and material defeat upon an enemy. In essence, irregular warfare consists of just about everything under the sun since it works both separately and in tandem with conventional warfare to achieve desired outcomes. However, separating irregular warfare from conventional warfare perhaps occludes more than it clarifies. The goal of securing influence over other actors—“assur[ing] or coerc[ing] states or other groups,” in the words of the Congressional Research Service—can be seen as the goal of both conventional and irregular warfare as traditional alliance networks and wars are meant to defend friends and repel enemies through any means necessary. For instance, surreptitious cyberattacks aimed at key banks or commercial actors are not much different than the use of formal naval blocks used to curtail a nation’s economic activity. Therefore, it is of great importance to recognize that warfare—whether conventional or irregular—is a continuum requiring management from whole-of-society inputs. Consequently, the United States government should consider the implementation of a new interagency office to coordinate these various inputs while bringing irregular threats into strategic focus. Such a body would not seek to duplicate the efforts of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) or other such entities focused solely on collecting and disseminating governmental intelligence. Rather, this new entity should resemble a more informal version of the National Defense Advisory Commission (NDAC), which was established in 1940 by Franklin Roosevelt’s administration to marry the leadership of governmental agencies (e.g. the Departments of War, Labor, and Agriculture) with that of commercial heavyweights (e.g. the Ford Motor Company or Higgins Industries) to concentrate defense production, stabilize consumer prices, and promote broad innovation. Indeed, as the Second World War effectively demonstrated, everything the American people could muster was necessary for expelling the forces of fascism from both the Atlantic and Pacific. This meant not only recruiting millions of men to fight in uniform, but also recruiting men and women at home to create effective propaganda, to coordinate the production of materiel to support those fighting abroad, to bolster deception, and to generate revenue through things like war bonds to ensure the United States and its allies had the treasure to prosecute a war against tyrants. In other words, there was little distinction between means and ends, warfighter and civilian, as the whole heft of the United States had to be mobilized to ensure victory in two theaters. Likewise, the numerous domains of irregular warfare today require many of the same public-private inputs as those used to fight in the Second World War. Cyber threats require both government bodies and private businesses to protect the data and infrastructure of the American people. The United States Navy must use its advanced warships and munitions to not only compete against other navies, but to protect vital shipping lanes like the Red Sea from disruptions. The American foreign policy apparatus must take staunch positions in forums like the United Nations to ensure strategic competitors like the People’s Republic of China (PRC) cannot amend or abuse elements like international maritime law to become the suzerain of a whole region. In this way, there is little distinction between irregular and conventional threats, with many of the same tools used across the board. With that in mind, it’s time to muster a new A-team to assess and respond to irregular threats in a holistic, far-seeing manner. The Department of Defense (DoD) veered close to this idea in miniature when it consolidated several military intelligence elements to form the Defense Clandestine Service (DCS). The formation of the DCS signaled a desire to overcome a degree of myopia imposed by the Global War on Terrorism. Rather than focusing solely on highly localized battlefield intelligence as it had during the start of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq in Afghanistan, the DCS would gather information relevant ...
