Talk:Irregular warfare

Lower-case "w"?
Should the "W" in Irregular Warfare be lower-case? Irregular warfare is not a proper noun, as far as I know. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Opening
In a broad sense, irregular warfare is as old as warfare -- far older than regular warfare. Yet this article is heavily focused on the most popular modern usage, highlighted by current warfare in Iraq.

While being the current popular usage, this focus may be justified, but some broader context should be mentioned, especially in the opening paragraph.

I suggest moving the "Other definitions" section to be part of the first paragraph, and include a mention about irregular warfare being the warfare involving irregular forces.

--A D Monroe III (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I fixed this point. I previously hid that point under the History section but moved it to the main section. Also, I found an earlyer use of the term "Irregular" and included references to the Geneva convention. Thanks so much for your help! Sid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidna (talk • contribs) 06:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Irregular Warfare Centre
The IWC is not a commercial site at all. The IWC had its start as a DoD effort which never got funded but was nevertheless carried forward by people who are passionate about its original vision. To my knowledge, no profit is being made from the effort. In any case, AKO has an associated site for IWC. Please post a discussion item before deleting something from this article. Thanks.

Sidna (talk), 29 July 2024 (UTC)

P.S. It is a ".org" site by the way.

Sidna (talk), 29 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It has a bookstore and makes a claim to sell services. Being a .org has no bearing on the matter. Yworo (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So do the Olympics and their site is referenced as an external link.

Sidna (talk), 29 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the IOC claims to sell services. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Links to official sites are permitted in articles about the subject. That's not the case here. Are you affiliated with the site? Yworo (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not. However, I am concerned that a primary resource related to the subject is being completely discounted. Sidna (talk), 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Entrance to IOC events is not free. The point is that both the IOC and IWC are not "commercial entities" in the regular sense of the word. Hence, they are under ".org" domain names. Many non-profit entities sell books by the way. Sidna (talk), 29 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The issue is not whether the organization is non-profit or not. The issue is whether the site has commercial activity. The link would only be acceptable on a article about the organization itself, and then only if the organization meets Wikipedia notability requirements. The resource would then be available simply by clicking through a wikilink to the article on the org, then finding the external link at the bottom of that article. Yworo (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Style
I made some style adjustments. Irregular warfare is not a proper noun, so it should be lowercased in the article title and elsewhere. It is also not a good idea to use initials throughout. The full wording is better. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth asking why this article is separate from Guerrilla warfare? Is this article intended to be about the term 'irregular warfare' - if so there should be a note at the top telling the reader to go to Guerrilla warfare for actual information about the subject. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As per modern military doctrine, IW is not the same thing as GW although they are related to each other. Sidna (talk), 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitions
There is something off in the definitions. For example I would unhesitatingly call the French Resistance struggles "irregular warfare", yet they aren't "violent struggle among state and non-state actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant population(s)". I would also question whether the American-Indian wars fall under that definition, yet they are listed as examples. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a reference to would help with French Resistance. However, what is and what is not IW is controversial even among academics. Sidna (talk), 29 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is the definition from one of the documents cited? If so, which one? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"It is inherently a protracted struggle that will test the resolve of a nation and its strategic partners.". That reads like an extract from a military manual. Is it? It's also clearly not true. Britain engaged in a number of 'irregular warfare' encounters in the fifties and sixties and many came nowhere close to 'testing the resolve of the nation'. Some were even quite brief. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It is from reference [1]. Sidna (talk), 29 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I found the exact quote in the "IW 101" slideshow from the USMC.
 * The trouble with this is that the US military uses a definition of irregular warfare that is useful for itself. That does not mean it is useful for an encyclopedia, unless this article is specifically about the US military approach to irregular warfare. I think this means that the article is going to have some problems. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Barrage
It seems that I am personally being subjected to a barrage of questions as if I was defending a thesis. It seems that the critiques being levied are being done without the benefit of knowledge of the references being cited. Is there a hidden agenda that I should be aware of??? Do y'all want to take over the article? Or, can collaboration occur?

Sidna (talk), 29 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Articles on Wikipedia are developed collaboratively. The only "agenda" is to conform the article to Wikipedia policies. Yworo (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. When editors think they see problems with an article it is normal to ask lots of questions. The alternative approach is to just wade in with changes, which leads to edit wars and this therefore best avoided. Please don't necessarily feel pressured to answer all of these immediately. You may not even know the answers to all of them. Think of them as us trying to work out what the author's intention was. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Fundamental issue
It looks as if the fundamental issue here is that the article is built almost entirely on sources from the US military. The definition is taken from them, and so do a lot of the examples. Now I'm not saying the US military doesn't know a lot about irregular warfare, but they have their own purposes and their own take on it. They are not interested in British colonial wars or the French Resistance. But as an encyclopedia, we should be.

I think we have two options here:
 * 1) Make this article specifically and explicitly about the US military concept of irregular warfare.
 * 2) Widen the scope to talk about other things. We already have irregular military and guerilla warfare which cover nearly the same territory - maybe we would be better off working on those than starting a new article.

What do others think? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

+++ The US military is most interested in British Colonial wars and the French Resistance. Military history is taught at all US military academies. It would be great if you could please update the "See also" section to include any other related material that you may think pertinent.

The article cites US, German, and Swiss sources. As stated in the article, basically Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte (German) is the military theoretician responsible for the IW concept. It would be great if you would please include sources from other countries (China, Russia, etc.). It would also be great if you would include in the "Other definitions" section any other authoritative definitions that you might encounter from any other country. If these sources exist then it will be non-trivial to find them because I did look for them.

The US armed forces are the most powerful and finest in the world. By the rationale stated above, if a country is leading a concept (in this case IW doctrine) then it should not be discussed in Wikipedia because it is bias against other countries. I do not agree with that rationale. Also, US military doctrine has, among many, NATO implications which covers a seemingly large chunk of the world.

The irregular military article does not even cite Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte nor does it discuss the concept of "irregular". The irregular military article discusses military forces and not military doctrine. And in all honesty, irregular military article should not really discuss military doctrine.

As previously stated, guerilla warfare is not the same thing as IW although they are related. GW is a sub-set of IW. For example, IW includes the concept of Civil-military operations (CMO) which has nothing to do with GW. IW is a much much larger concept than GW. The "Activities" section of the IW article makes that clear.

Both the guerilla warfare and irregular military articles seem to be long enough already and the information in the IW being merged into either would make them too long in my opinion.

The "Irregular Wars" section was never intended as an exhaustive list but rather as a representative list. All are welcome to expand the section to include other IW conflicts.

No, we do not just have 2 options. You are proposing 2 options but there are other options. For example, contributing to the article should also be considered.

Sidna (talk), 29 July 2024 (UTC) +++

American Revolutionary War
In what sense is the ARW, conducted largely between regular uniformed forces, an irregular war? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that is a really interesting question. According to the definition of "regular forces", which came much after the ARW, the American forces did not meet the following criteria at all times during the ARW:

* having a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance * carrying arms openly * conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

Not withstanding, in terms of modern international humanitarian law which was also developed much later than the ARW, the American forces formed part of the armed forces of a party to an armed conflict but not belonging to that party's regular forces (since the USA did exist and hence could not have had regular forces; the American forces were an insurgency at least until 1776) and operating in or outside of their own territory even if the territory is under occupation.

The point is that the American forces became regular forces but cannot be considered regular forces during the entire period of the ARW. For example, the American flag did get established (1777) until 2 years after the ARW started (1775). Also, the were great disparities between the American and British forces. It was not until the French started to assist American forces (1778) that the disparity started to be narrowed. Conflict during the disparity can surely count as asymmetric warfare. Also, if the Boston tea party (1773) counts as part of the ARW then it must surely be counted as guerrilla tactics. At the very least, a good portion of the ARW should be counted as IW although the entire ARW being counted as IW may be controversial. However, since more than 1/2 of the ARW was fought as IW then it should be safe classify it as IW even though that the American forces acted in all respects as regular forces towards the end of the conflict.

See: 

For an opposing view, see:

Sidna (talk), 29 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Your argument seems to rest on "not all forces were regular for all of the time". That is true of many wars from Napoleonic to World War II, yet it would be wrong to classify them as "irregular wars", and it is wrong to classify this one so. Your first reference correctly points out that some units engaged in regular warfare, but some does not mean all. Your second is a broken link to a Wikipedia clone. Your third disproves your point entirely. I quote:"The American Revolution had more in common with the linear warfare used in the Seven Years War than with the irregular skirmishes fought on the frontiers of North America in the same conflict." DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For the remainder of your arguments: Battle of Bunker Hill (1775) was clearly fought along regular lines, so was the British assault on New York. So there is no question that "half the war was an irregular one", if you were thinking of the half as being by time. The flag argument is irrelevant - the Americans certainly fought under a flag in 1775, even if it wasn't the one we think of now. Fighting under a different flg from the one we know does not make a force 'irregular'. But as I say, this is irrelevant. Your point is entirely original research. The actual source clearly state that the war as a whole was a 'regular' one. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Both points of view were put into a note. Yes, I am most definitely reading the discussion. Please, do not keep overriding the edits. Read the edits before doing anything. Frankly, I am getting tired of this situation and I am very close for calling for mediation.

Sidna (talk), 29 July 2024 (UTC)


 * A mediation would be extremely welcome. Your point of view is unsupported by references. All the references you have cited only indicate that there were some irregular operations. On the other hand there is an extremely good reference stating clearly that the general conduct of the war was closer to regular than irregular. You know that reference is there, because you supplied it and cite it in your very own footnote! The same footnote in which you completely fail to supply references to support your point of view.
 * This has been going on long enough. Why not talk, instead of just reverting my changes. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

&rarr; from Third opinion: Sorting through the discussion, edits, sources, and general topic area, I would say that on balance it would not be correct to call the ARW an IW or list it as an example here. There is enough material, though, for some discussion of irregular warfare in the ARW family of articles. A few sources supporting this opinion but not used in this article:    - 2/0 (cont.) 07:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irregular warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100725213733/http://www.strategycenter.org/publications/armedgroups to http://www.strategycenter.org/publications/armedgroups

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irregular warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090623141322/http://www.wooster.edu/History/jgates/book-contents.html to http://www3.wooster.edu/History/jgates/book-contents.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)