Hybrid Warfare

‘Hybrid’ warfare, as the name implies, is a product having mixed character of two or more elements. Initially, it referred to employment of irregular forces and non-state actors with military capability. After the 2006 Lebanon-Israel war, which saw Hezbollah employing guerilla warfare along with innovative use of technology and effective information campaign, Frank Hoffman used the terms ‘hybrid threat’ and ‘hybrid warfare’ to explain application of multiple, diverse tactics simultaneously against an opponent.  In the absence of an agreed upon term, numerous terms such as ‘hybrid threats’, ‘hybrid influencing’, â€˜hybrid adversary’, ‘non-linear war’, â€˜non-traditional war’, â€˜special war’, ‘grey zone’ and ‘unrestricted warfare’ are in use by militaries and academia in different countries. However, the term ‘Fifth Generation Warfare’ being all about ‘information and perception’ with dependence on non-kinetic means such as social engineering, misinformation, cyberattacks etc. can be applied in support of hybrid warfare but does not provide an alternate term.

Hybrid warfare relies on provoking historical, ethnic, religious, socioeconomic, and geographic differences or fault lines in a society. Its tools include proxy warfare, information warfare, propaganda, terrorist activities, political and diplomatic coercion, economic strangulation, cyber warfare, social engineering, misinformation and lawfare etc. The aggressor also endeavours to leverage influence over international actors and institutions through diplomatic efforts. However, all these are spearheaded by intelligence systems.

Perpetrators of hybrid war use multidimensional infiltration into enemy systems with an aim to demoralise, destabilise and disintegrating the adversary with an underlying intent of controlling or influencing the latter into compliance. The infiltration creates divisions and polarisation in the population, psychologically undermines decision-making capabilities, and systematically cripples financial and information networks. Result of the combined effects of these efforts is catastrophic for the target nation. In other words, such warfare is a struggle fought in familiar and unfamiliar battlefields, from the virtual realms of cyberspace to the minds of people. It has a peculiar nature and various elements interact at different levels. Offender exercises the ability to control its levels, apply the elements singly or in different combinations to manipulate intensity according to dictates of the situation. Since it is a centrally designed and controlled application of various covert and overt tactics, overall result is always greater than the sum total of all the elements. Hybrid adversaries, however, endeavor to keep the constituents separate to avoid connectivity and evade attribution and legal implications. Additionally, during application of hybrid war, the aggressor maintains a robust defence posture to avert any response.

Hybrid warfare is not a new concept. Intelligence, propaganda, disinformation, economic strangulation, and subversive activities have been used in the wars for long. New technologies in the information age have, however, added a new dimension and made it much more effective and attractive. Unacceptably high cost of personnel, material and resources in modern wars has also made hybrid warfare a more attractive option.

Like many other states, Pakistan also has many vulnerabilities; important ones being identity conflict, ethnic and sectarian divide, unequal economic opportunities, political instability, weak or non-functional institutions etc. These have been further aggravated by poor governance, failure to implement rule of law and provide justice to the aggrieved.

While enemies would always exploit our fault lines and vulnerabilities, it is our responsibility to defend our national interests. Unfortunately, the very leadership which was responsible to make and implement visionary policies to reduce vulnerabilities, has wittingly or unwittingly acted as a catalyst to widen the divide. Successive leadership, instead of bridging the gaps through negotiations, dialogue and mutual accommodation, have further exacerbated the divisions through shortsightedness, rigidity and indiscriminate use of force. Such tactics, while temporarily successful, caused long term differences.

Repeated failures have put Pakistan’s national security, social cohesion, economic well-being, culture, and political stability etc. at risk. It therefore becomes extremely important for the government and all the state institutions to carefully study past and assess current challenges to understand the threat and its implications for the state.  It is suggested that all stakeholders should be brought on board to make policies and strategies aimed at effectively responding to the entire spectrum of hybrid warfare. Concurrently, efforts must be made to counter exploitation of these vulnerabilities by the external forces and their domestic sympathizers. The policies must also aim to safeguard our national interests, ensure state stability while remaining globally competitive and politically relevant in the evolving geopolitical environment.

Areas requiring immediate attention include sustained development for a strong economy, revamping the education system, creating religious, ethnic and interprovincial harmony, an effective legal and judicial system, realigning our foreign policy to changing geostrategic realities, creating awareness for leadership and masses about the threat, effective use of media, social media, academia and think tanks, exploring legal options and development of a national narrative. 

Since no policy can be sustainable without public support, the state and all its institutions should endeavor to draw strength from the citizens. As the enemy endeavours to provoke and exploit our vulnerabilities, there is a need to display visionary leadership to resolve the differences instead of compounding them with shear arrogance and disdain. Resorting to policies which did not yield desired results in the past, will only be akin to reinforcing failure.

The author is a retired Air Marshal of the PAF who served as Pakistan’s Air Advisor at New Delhi from 2002-06, presently working as Director Technologies and International Cooperation at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies, Islamabad, Pakistan. The article was first published in The Nation. He can be reached at [email protected]


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

How the Nature of Warfare Affects the AI Optimism

Since the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI), a pressing question is being asked: Is Clausewitz still relevant? The game-changing potential of AI and the idea of human-machine teaming (centaur systems) have led many to doubt the seemingly unchanged nature of war. Apparently, it has given rise to the belief that AI-powered systems will replace humans (generals) in the command loop. However, this view is detached from the complex nature of warfare, which remains fundamentally a human endeavour guided by violence, chance and friction.

Just like other social institutions, war is generally an interpretivist paradigm rooted in complex human nature. It is a non-linear phenomenon whose conduct and outcomes cannot be determined by analytical predictions or algorithmic patterns. In other words, war usually does not proceed on pre-determined rules of engagement, prescriptive manuals, established patterns and predictive modelling. Instead, it is fought on judgment, adaptation to changing realities, commander’s intuition and paying attention to the unfolding of the unknown. 

Read More »

Two Faces of the Atom: India’s Nuclear Exceptionalism

ew examples capture the inconsistencies of the nuclear world order more starkly than the events of 2 March 2026: as Prime Ministers’ Mark Carney and Narendra Modi signed a landmark 1.9 billion USD uranium supply deal for India’s civil nuclear sector, Iran was subjected to the third day of indiscriminate airstrikes by the US and Israel under the banner of nuclear non-proliferation, despite Iran agreeing to zero stockpiling of enriched uranium just days prior. This event, unfortunately, was not an isolated one, rather it reflects a pattern of nuclear exceptionalism where certain states such as India, continue to be rewarded for non-compliance with international regulations, while others such as Iran, are censured and even subjected to military action based on hypothetical realities.

The latest deal would see Canada sell close to 22 million pounds of uranium concentrate to India over 8 years, starting in 2027, a sale more than ten times the last Canada-India uranium agreement of 2015, which supplied 7 million pounds of concentrate over 5 years.

Read More »

Data Centres as the New Military Targets in Modern Conflicts

The character of warfare has evolved in tandem with the changing nature of military targets. In early March 2026, Iran bypassed traditional military targets and struck the physical part of the digital infrastructure at Amazon Web Services (AWS) data centres in the UAE and Bahrain. Until now data centres had been considered an unassuming target, as they did not house any military equipment or hardware. However, the US-Israel war on Iran, has transformed these billion dollar sites into high-value targets because of their ability to act as server farms on which adversaries’ websites, apps, AI systems and the entire digital infrastructure run.

Data centres are digital ecosystems where the delivery of cloud services depends on the integrity of physical infrastructure. Disruption in any one part of the shared infrastructure does not remain isolated and risks triggering widespread systemic failure. In the case at hand, Amazon operated multiple availability zones within each region in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Iran struck two of the three availability zones in the UAE, while in Bahrain, a zone was damaged by drone debris causing an extended power outage and connectivity problems that further disrupted service across the Gulf.

Read More »