Conditions for adopting an irregular defense strategy

Abstract

From small countries’ perspectives, the four general defensive postures—conventional military build-ups, WMD acquisition, alliance formation, and neutrality—are not always viable choices, and are often unaffordable. So these countries must seek more effective and less expensive solutions. From more powerful countries’ perspectives, there is something to be changed, too, since the conflicts of the last few decades have indicated that conventionally waged wars against contemporary opponents have often led to failure. Given that ongoing conflicts differ from classical conventional warfare, two major questions arise: (1) Is irregular warfare still really irregular, or has it now replaced conventional warfare and become regular? (2) Is it wise to consider a professional irregular warfighting capability in defense strategy? Recent research proved the effectiveness of irregular warfare, and concluded that a combination of one of the general conventional models with irregular warfare techniques is desirable. Through analysis of the major dominant irregular leaders’ ideologies and their theories, and the case studies of three recent irregular wars, this research was conducted to provide a clearer understanding of the conditions necessary for waging a successful irregular campaign.