Irregular Warfare, Part One: Updating the Term and the Toolkit

Key Takeaways

• State stewardship becomes primary criterion for irregular warfare classification
• AI enables non‑state actors to launch sophisticated cognitive operations
• Stewardship model centers legitimacy as strategic gravity
• Grey‑zone threats use synthetic media to erode cohesion
• Revised doctrine boosts Joint Force readiness against AI threats

Pulse Analysis

The evolving character of irregular warfare has outpaced the Department of War’s traditional definitions, which rely heavily on the notion of asymmetry. As both conventional and unconventional actors now operate across kinetic and non‑kinetic domains, the old taxonomy blurs critical distinctions, leading to strategic ambiguity. By anchoring the definition in state stewardship—measuring the level of authority, entitlement, and responsibility an actor possesses—militaries can more precisely identify which operations demand a full‑scale response and which remain in the grey zone, preserving the Joint Force’s core competency.

Artificial intelligence amplifies the challenges posed by non‑state actors and regional powers, lowering the barrier to sophisticated influence campaigns. Machine‑learning algorithms can generate deep‑fakes, micro‑targeted propaganda, and real‑time sentiment analysis, allowing adversaries to manipulate public perception and erode societal trust without overt force. These cognitive operations shift the center of gravity from physical assets to legitimacy and cohesion, demanding a doctrinal response that prioritizes information integrity and rapid counter‑narratives. Recognizing AI‑enabled tactics as integral to irregular warfare forces planners to embed cyber‑psychological expertise within traditional command structures.

Adopting a stewardship‑focused doctrine equips U.S. forces with a clearer decision‑making framework for confronting AI‑driven threats. It delineates responsibilities across the spectrum of actors, ensuring that resources are allocated to counter the most destabilizing activities while preserving diplomatic leeway for lower‑stewardship actors. This approach also supports allied cohesion by providing a common language for joint operations and coalition planning. As the series continues, policymakers will need concrete recommendations—such as AI‑augmented intelligence cycles and enhanced attribution capabilities—to translate the stewardship concept into actionable readiness measures.