Anxiety about ambiguous warfare and 'hybridity' is all the rage. But the rapidly proliferating literature on 'grey', 'hybrid' and 'non-linear warfare' is confused and references a bewildering range of military, political and economic developments associated with the changing nature of war over several decades. 1 The proliferation of terms emphasizes that conceptual clarity is in short supply, and this elasticity ultimately obscures more than it explains. 2 We argue that this lack of clarity turns upon the paradoxical nature of covert action. Covert action by definition seeks to change things and often leaves some sort of a trail. Although some have remarked on the varying degrees of exposure associated with hybrid warfare, little systematic analysis exists of the role of visibility and acknowledgement. 3 We therefore seek to relocate the debate within a wide-ranging analysis of covert action which, on closer inspection, was often hardly covert at all. We unpack ideas surrounding secrecy to challenge assumptions about covert action and offer broader insights into contemporary interventionism.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cormac et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: