When Is Irregular Warfare Unconventional? Actors, Methods and Sponsorship

Unconventional Warfare Review | Maurice "Duc" DuClos

Irregular warfare is distinguished by who fights, while unconventional warfare concerns the sponsorship of irregular forces. These categories should not be confused with the methods used on the battlefield. Drones, cyber operations and guerrilla tactics do not, by themselves, make a conflict irregular. The identity of the belligerents and their relationships require separate assessment.

Drawing on Stephen Biddle’s Fabian–Napoleonic spectrum, Maurice DuClos argues that state and nonstate forces can employ similar military methods. He defines irregular warfare as a conflict involving at least one irregular or nonstate belligerent. Unconventional warfare, in his framework, occurs when an external actor sponsors an irregular force to pursue strategic objectives. Proxy warfare is broader because a state may also sponsor another state’s regular military. The author argues that analysts should ask three distinct questions: who is fighting, how they fight, and who sponsors whom. This framework challenges classifications based solely on technological novelty, asymmetric tactics or indirect approaches. The supplied extract also questions the alignment between established definitions of irregular warfare and unconventional warfare in US doctrine. Its full doctrinal argument cannot be assessed from the incomplete extract alone.

Comment

The distinction between actors and methods provides a useful starting point for analysing conflicts. A force can adopt guerrilla tactics without changing its status, while advanced technology does not automatically make warfare irregular.

The sponsorship question adds another analytical layer. It helps distinguish support for an irregular force from proxy relationships involving regular state militaries. These distinctions can improve how analysts describe the conflict and assess the relationships shaping it.

For India, the framework is relevant to examining insurgencies, externally supported armed groups and proxy competition. Its practical value depends on establishing each actor’s status and the nature of any sponsorship, rather than inferring either from tactics alone.

Strategic Question for Discussion

Should military doctrine classify irregular warfare by the identity of the belligerents rather than the methods they employ?

An actor-based definition offers a clearer boundary between conflicts involving nonstate forces and wars fought exclusively by state militaries. However, methods remain essential to understanding operational behaviour, capabilities and vulnerabilities. Doctrine should distinguish these questions rather than use one as a substitute for the other. Analysts must also examine sponsorship separately when determining whether a relationship constitutes unconventional warfare.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

Read the original article