practice in regular combat. To effect such a radical change while still retaining a core
competency in regular warfare is a major challenge which few regular military establish-
ments succeed in meeting satisfactorily. The regular soldier engaged in irregular warfare
finds that the enemy has no obvious ‘centre of gravity’ (Clausewitz, 1976: 595–7), no
capital city and probably no fixed lines of communication; looks identical to the civilian
population; and refuses to stand and fight, except at times and in places of its own
choosing, or when it is trapped and has no choice. As a general rule, regular soldiers
trained to fight other regulars are out of their military depth when the enemy is irregular.
This is an ancient phenomenon. Chechnya, Iraq and Afghanistan are simply the most
recent examples of a thread that runs through all of strategic history. How to counter an
insurgency is no great mystery. The difficulties lie in translating and adapting theory for
effective practice in particular historical instances.
Because of the significance of the differences among the handful of terms key to this
discussion, Box 18.1 provides a convenient collection of the essential definitions.
248 War, peace and international relations
Box 18.1Irregular warfare: definition of key terms
The primary purpose of any theory is to clarify concepts and ideas that have
become, as it were, confused and entangled. Not until terms and concepts have been
defined can one hope to make any progress in examining the question clearly and
simply and expect the reader to share one’s views.
(Clausewitz, 1976: 132)Clausewitz is correct, but the key terms and concepts that bear upon irregular
warfare are exceptionally vague and contestable. For a classic example that has
become a cliché, one person’s ‘terrorist’ is another person’s ‘freedom fighter’. To
some people, terrorists are soldiers; to others they are criminals. Opinion is apt to
depend upon political and moral judgement about the stakes in the conflict at issue.
One cannot evade these difficulties entirely when offering definitions, but by
following the minimalist rule that less is more, one can at least avoid some of the
traps.- Irregular warfare:‘[A small war] may be said to include all campaigns other
than those where both the opposing sides consist of regular troops’ (Callwell,
1990: 21). Callwell, writing a century ago (1906, 3rd edn), referred to ‘small
wars’ rather than irregular war, but the terms are identical in meaning. ‘[Small
war] is simply used to denote, in default for a better, operations of regular
armies against irregular, or comparatively speaking irregular, forces’ (Callwell,
1990: 22). - Guerrilla warfareis the character of warfare waged of necessity by irregular
belligerents. Its hallmarks are surprise and the avoidance of large-scale open
combat. It is a technique in the waging of war that any group or army, regular
or irregular, can learn. But to be conducted successfully, guerrilla warfare