By Eslam Abdelmagid Eid
Since 2011, especially after the so-called “Arab Spring revolutions”, the Middle East has been experiencing a state of turmoil and instability at all political, social and economic levels.
The region has also seen significant interference from external international or regional parties in the affairs of many countries, and a major shift in the regional balance of power, with some Arab countries, such as Syria, Libya, Iraq and Yemen, turning in fragile states and even failed.
This has facilitated the process of interference in the internal affairs of some Middle Eastern countries by global powers, such as the United States and Russia, as well as regional powers such as Turkey and Iran, through one of the methods of modern warfare known as “Hybrid warfare”. Through a number of agents within the countries of the region, some sponsor countries play on the sectarian and ideological side of their delegates, supporting them financially and militarily to ensure their areas of influence on the ground, without material and military losses, as happens in the conventional wars. Sponsoring countries, in their hybrid warfare strategy in the Middle East, rely more on armed militias as the primary tool to implement their plans.
There are, for example, ideological agents supported by Turkey in Syria as members of the so-called “Free Syrian Army”, as well as some militant groups such as Ahrar al-Sham, Jaish al-Islam as well as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which includes former members of the Al-Nusra Front as well as the Hurras al-Din group. Iran also uses ideological proxies, linked to it by Wilayat al-Faqih, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi group in Yemen. In addition to the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, there is a second section called the utilitarian agents represented by the US-backed Kurdish forces in Syria. We also find a third section of agents in Libya represented by the Syrian mercenaries in addition to the Sudanese and Chadians, who were transported from Turkey to Libya.
Generally, the generations of wars have diversified according to the diversity of their methods and means. The first generation is a traditional war between two regular armies and in direct confrontation, while the second generation is represented by guerilla wars or revolutionary wars, which are no longer between conventional regular armies but between fighting groups with specific objectives. Perhaps the peak of their spread was during the Cold War in the last century, particularly in a number of developing countries, perhaps the most important of which was the Cuban revolution. While the third generation of wars, which involves preemptive strikes, and is also called maneuvering warfare, is an extension of the German Wehrmacht’s blitzkrieg warfare during World War II, although the term originated within the States Army United in 1989. Perhaps the most prominent examples were the swift maneuvers of coalition forces’ cavalry forces deep into Iraqi lands in the second Gulf War. The fourth generation of wars are the confrontation between a regular army of a state and hidden cells scattered in various parts of the world, also called asymmetrical wars. Its most obvious example is the War on Terror announced by the United States after the attack on the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001.
Then there are the fifth generation wars, which are called “hybrid wars”, which is a modern military strategy that mixes: concepts of conventional warfare and concepts of irregular warfare, electronic warfare and hybrid warfare which may also include nuclear attacks, chemical, biological and radiological weapons.
First: what is meant by hybrid warfare?
They are space wars, in which the wars of outer space meet with digital wars, and their goal is hundreds of times multiplied the losses, compared to wars limited to one of the two arenas separately. “Hybrid” wars are based on conventional and unconventional, regular and irregular, overt and hidden weapons, means and tools, in which all new dimensions are exploited in these wars, the most important of which is the dimension that adds space. digital to the traditional human system.
US Army Lieutenant Colonel Bill Nemeth was the first to describe this war as “a modern form of guerilla warfare in which revolutionaries use modern technology and sophisticated means to gain moral and popular support.”
As for the American researcher Nathan Freer of the “Center for International Strategic Studies”, he established another definition in which he considered that we are facing hybrid warfare when an armed group uses two or more non-offensive and four offensive methods, as a system of warfare to face hostile military superiority.
In Frank Hoffman’s 2005 book entitled “Conflicts in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars”, hybrid warfare is defined as “a combination of guerrilla tactics and terrorist groups with the possession of conventional capabilities and weapons similar to those of the regular armies “. . In this context, “the use of different types of warfare, include traditional capabilities, unconventional tactics and terrorist acts, as well as the spread of chaos and crime”.
In his view, states and non-state groups seek to develop new capabilities (technology and unexpected tactics) in order to gain strategic advantage and avoid direct confrontation with the militarily superior opponent [The Challenges of Hybrid Warfare Eve Hunter with Piret Pernik, International Center for Defense and Security, April 2015].
Second: proxy war
The world, especially in the aftermath of World War II and during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, witnessed what is known as proxy war, and its significance indicates the presence of great, global powers. or regional, compete in the so-called conflict zone. These great powers avoid or do not want to enter a direct war in order to have no material and human damage, and therefore support the military forces in small countries in order to realize their interests.
It can be said that the reluctance of the original actors (great powers) to enter the field of conflict, and thus to arm the local players to fight in their place and avoid risking their reputation on the international scene. the sponsor and the power of attorney:
The sponsor is: an international actor (both state and non-state), who has goals that he wants to achieve indirectly, and therefore makes use of an agent who works in his interest to achieve them.
Regarding the agent, it is: an actor (state or non-state) who is hired to carry out activities on behalf of the sponsor, in exchange for a tangible or intangible equivalent.
There is no doubt that the agent’s actions will affect the interests of the sponsor, who may know and evaluate the results of the agent’s work, but cannot fully monitor or control the agent’s behavior in the performance of his duties required by the sponsor.
There may be a discrepancy in preferences and decisions on the field between the sponsor and the agent, and if this difference widens between the two parties, the agent tends not to adhere to what is specifically assigned to him by the sponsor, hence the possibilities of differences between the two sides will increase.
The sponsor is certainly the one who initiates the drafting of the contract relating to the agency contract, and in most cases this contract is not documented, the sponsor has absolute bargaining power over the agent, due to the unequal relationship between the two parties.
Types of Agent
First: the state
State is the traditional and oldest model for the proxy element. As for the Middle East, a large number of its countries were used in the context of the Cold War between the two poles (the United States and the Soviet Union). In the 1950s and 1960s, the United States used Saudi Arabia as its proxy against Egypt, led by Gamal Abdel Nasser. Perhaps the most prominent example was the war in Yemen in 1962, which was between the republicans led by Abdullah al-Sallal, backed by Egypt, and forces loyal to Imam al-Badr, backed by Saudi Arabia.
Second: the armed militias
Armed militias are the most used element in the current period, particularly after the revolutions of the Arab Spring in 2011, and the fall of several Arab regimes in that period. The institutions of these countries weakened and collapsed and became unable to perform their security duties, which led to the lack of stability in the Arab interior. This is what led regional and international powers to intervene broadly in the conflict arenas in the region, hoping they would use the situation to expand their influence in the Arab world. Armed militias are divided into three components:
1- Utilitarian agent
Tribal and ethnic militias fall under this agent, and perhaps the closest example of this in the region is the Kurdish forces present in northeastern Syria, to which the United States has provided military and material support since the outbreak of the Syria crisis in 2011. These elements known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (Qasd) were present in large areas in northeastern Syria, until President Trump announced his intention to carry out a complete withdrawal of American forces, concurrently with the announcement of Ankara to start its military campaign there. Which caused a sensation in American political circles, until the withdrawal of this decision, the end of 2019, and decided not to withdraw completely, in response to pressure from the American military establishment, so that the United States would not leave the arena. to full Russian control, and not to lose its allies in Syria, which are the Kurds. Also, another important factor, which is that the sites where America’s forces are concentrated are close to oil and gas wells. In any case, this illustrates very well the hypothesis that it is easy for the sponsor to abandon the agent if this link between the two parties involves some problems and damages for the sponsor.
2- Pragmatic agent
We mention in this element the mercenary groups. A mercenary is any person who performs work for monetary compensation, regardless of the type of work or purpose of it, and the name is often given to those who serve in the military of a foreign country for money.
Turkey is the most important country that uses mercenaries as part of its efforts to penetrate Libya. The Swedish Nordic Monitor reported that Turkey began sending mercenaries from Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army militants in December 2019, as the same site mentions Ankara sending around 300 fighters initially, and said that in the middle of By 2020, Turkey had sent around 11,600 Syrian fighters to Libya, of which around 470 were killed, while the Syrian Center for Human Rights said at least 50 of these fighters had been identified as former ISIS members.
This is due to Erdogan’s use of a different strategy in Libya from his previous strategy in Syria, because Libya differs from Syria in that it does not fall within the geographical area adjacent to Turkey, which makes military intervention difficult. direct, which is the transfer of military personnel and vehicles. So Ankara opted for proxy war, sending it to Syrian mercenaries, to support its ally in Libya, the Government of National Accord), to which Turkey has also provided financial and military aid.
3- Ideological agent
Here we must certainly mention the Shiite groups that follow loyalty to Wilayat al-Faqih in Iran which provides support to quasi-governmental bodies in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. In Lebanon, Tehran contributed to the creation of the Lebanese Hezbollah after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. It is worth noting that Hezbollah is possessed of an armed force perhaps stronger than the Lebanese National Army, as well as having a political presence in the Lebanon. Lebanese parliament and in the Lebanese government. Tehran supports it with the aim of increasing its influence at the expense of other regional powers such as Israel, while in Iraq, Tehran contributed directly to the formation of the Badr Organization in 1982. During the Iran-Iraq war, and then after the invasion Iraq in 2003, the opportunity presented itself for the emergence of elements whose ideas were inspired by the Islamic revolution in Iran, in particular the Dawa Party and the Sadrist movement, which facilitated Tehran’s mission to control the process decision making in Iraq. Currently, the Popular Mobilization Forces owe loyalty to Wilayat al-Faqih in Tehran, while in Syria Iran supports the fragile Assad regime, given the old relations between Tehran and Damascus, as well as the presence of militias affiliated with the regime.
As for Yemen, Iran provides support to the Houthis, a faction whose legitimacy is not recognized internationally, and the Trump administration has considered it a terrorist organization. Tehran aims to limit Saudi Arabia and reduce its influence in Yemen, thanks to the United Nations ban on arms exports to the Houthis, which strengthens their dependence on Iran and its military arm in the region, which is the Revolutionary Guard. .
Third: private security companies
Wagner company
Russia uses them notably in Libya. Wagner is one of several Russian special military groups that first appeared on battlefields in eastern Ukraine, particularly in the Ukrainian Donbas region, when pro-Russian Ukrainians revolted against the Ukrainian government. with the aim of separating from Kiev.
The head of this group is Yevgeny Perigozhin, a Russian businessman known for his great connection with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Moscow uses Wagner’s elements to achieve a number of objectives: the first of which is to free Russia from political and internal security threats. Furthermore Russia, due to their high training and competence, through Wagner Moscow can pursue its foreign policy objectives in secret, since Russia does not want to officially intervene in Libya, in order not to risk its interests with strategic partners such as Turkey, whose leader supports the government of national accord at a time when Russia is interfering in favor of Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, commander of the Libyan Eastern Forces, or what is known as the Libyan National Army, despite its relations with both sides of the Libyan conflict. Russia also does not currently have the capacity to wage another conflict in the Middle East after its current presence in Syria.
Sadat International Defense Consulting Company
The company is one of the military arms of the Party for Justice and Development and an important strategic tool in the hands of the Turkish government to support extremist organizations on the African continent.
Therefore, “Sadat” is considered closer in his military style to the irregular revolutionary armies such as the “Iranian Revolutionary Guard” and its outer arm “the Quds Force”. Hence, “Sadat” expands its activities to support religious unrest and conflict, subversive activities and political assassinations, and to fuel radical religious ideas in the conflict areas of the continent, Libya, Central Africa, Nigeria and other African countries, especially the region African Sahel, which is witnessing divisions between moderate and radical currents, represent an appropriate environment for the expansion of Sadat’s activities. This company is linked to the Turkish government and there are strong indications of this relationship, including the appointment of Adnan Tanri Verdi, the founder of the company, as security adviser to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the company providing security protection for President.
Reports state that “Sadat” has set up training camps inside Turkey, particularly in the Tokat and Konya states in central Anatolia, where mercenaries and terrorist organizations are trained.
Sadat’s field of business is focused on providing irregular warfare training and information indicates the company’s involvement in recruiting and training mercenaries from Syria and Asian and African countries. Reports indicate that the company receives a $ 10,000 commission for every fighter who participates in the fights. The company is engaged in providing intelligence information to Turkish intelligence, marketing for the Turkish military industry, and providing its customers with weapons, explosives and other military equipment.
Sadat is also present in Libya and has already sent dozens of military trainers to train militias associated with the government of national agreement. There are estimated to be around 88 members of the company in Libya. In November 2019, Sadat signed a contract with the Libyan private security company, led by Brotherhood leader Sameh Bukit, to train militias associated with the Government of National Accord.
The role of the media in hybrid warfare
It is remarkable that when the famous American thinker Joseph Nye tried to formulate the relationship between the media and public opinion in his important book: “Soft Power: Paths to Success in the World of International Politics”, published in 2004, he said that “battles cannot be won only in Battlefields, and the one who wins the war is the one who wins the media narrative.
It is a decidedly remarkable formulation, because it indicates the utmost importance of the role of the media in warfare, perhaps equal to the importance of the war machine itself, and also because of its emphasis on the war and media syndrome and its great value in modern wars. , especially the wars of the fifth generation. The influence of the media lies on two main factors, which are the national character of the states, strongly influenced by the era of globalization, and the morale of the peoples themselves, which may be able to lose countries in wars before they start. This is what the United States used during the Iraq war in 2003.
Perhaps there are also many examples. Gaddafi’s regime did not fall at the beginning, but fell when Tripoli was given for fall on satellite channels. The same for Mosul, the largest city in Iraq, “bombed” by tweets on Twitter, which caused panic among the Iraqi government forces who withdrew from the city, abandoning it to ISIS, without fighting. The public feeling is that events in a country reach a boiling point, and protests surround it on all sides, while the number of protesters inside it does not exceed one hundred protesters in three alleys that bear the same character in its context. This also explains the efforts to establish strategic energies and multimedia networks. Perhaps the most obvious examples of this are the state of Qatar and its media network (Al-Jazeera).
American writer Philip Seib believes that “powerful media can influence the formulation of military and political conflicts just like direct hard power elements” [The Jazeera Effect – How the New Global Media Reshapes International Politics – Philip Seib – Al Jazeera Center for Studies]
So, it becomes clear to us through this how some of the media in the region have turned into rifles and grenade launchers, to play the role of a war machine, and this role can sometimes surpass this role, and therefore has been able to undermine and destabilize countries.
The role of the economy in hybrid warfare
The use of economics in hybrid warfare lies in what is known as the economic tactic of armed conflict. Currently, it is one of the means of waging wars, and it has taken many forms with wide application, and countries generally prefer it to armed conflict or at least take it as a measure to intensify a less severe form of wars.
Economic sanctions imposed by states or international entities such as the United States, in line with the principles of their foreign and security policies, to effect a change in the policies and activities of target countries, or to put pressure on their enemies on the international stage , such as Russia and China.
It is surprising that in the post-Cold War period, non-state armed groups began to emerge as one of the elements of the new international order. These groups initially received the support of international and regional powers, and the emergence of these groups gradually accompanied what is known as the “economy of violence” as they began to reach their sufficiency. Some of these groups, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hezbollah in Lebanon, have traded weapons and drugs to bring money, and other extremist groups are active in the Sahel countries and rely heavily on the diamond trade to build their economic strength.
What are the requirements for dealing with hybrid warfare
The hybrid threat must be identified and addressed in the first phase. This means that all non-governmental organizations operating in the country, and in allied countries, must be registered and the reasons for their access to foreign funding must be examined, as some of these organizations are exploited by other countries to fulfill their interests. And all organizations that operate illegally and pose a threat to national security should be banned or closed. Additionally, local media should be encouraged to clarify the dangers of hybrid warfare in order to cooperate with state agencies to inform the population and make them aware of the threats they face.
Second, it is necessary to ensure that representatives of the security services are trained on ways to train hybrid military devices, particularly in the field of color revolution prevention and unconventional war response. It is important that they meticulously counter the growing anger to avoid fueling conflicts to avoid the scenarios that, for example, occurred in the countries of the former Soviet Union: color revolutions supported by the West, led by the United States of America.
Finally, the so-called democracy security strategy, which consists of encouraging national movements in civil society, which could become more supportive of their government. It may be important that governments around the world help develop this type of movement as an effective protection against hybrid wars waged through media and technology. Civil society forces, which some may see as a source of threat, can at the same time be the first line of defense against the threat of hybrid warfare, if cooperation is established between them and the state on the basis of the supreme national interest.
Author: Eslam Abdelmagid Eid (Academic, political researcher, and specialist in Middle East affairs)
(The views expressed in this article belong only to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy or views of World Geostrategic Insights).
Image Credit: Oliver Weiken/picture-alliance/dpa/AP