The Structural Biases That Undermine US Irregular Warfare | Modern War Institute

Key Takeaways

• Measurability bias rewards kill‑chains, ignores population legitimacy metrics
• Temporal mismatch pits two‑year budgets against generational insurgent timelines
• Conventional primacy steers promotions toward high‑intensity war, marginalizing irregular expertise
• Reforms call for new metrics, career tracks, and long‑term funding for irregular warfare

Pulse Analysis

The United States’ approach to irregular warfare is hampered by institutional blind spots that prioritize what can be counted over what truly matters. Rolander identifies a measurability bias that elevates sortie rates and kill‑chain statistics while sidelining population alignment, governance performance, and legitimacy—variables that are difficult to quantify but decisive in protracted conflicts. This focus reflects a broader cultural reflex that equates military success with conventional, high‑intensity combat, leaving irregular expertise under‑resourced and under‑rewarded.

Compounding the problem is a temporal mismatch between the Pentagon’s two‑year appropriations, three‑year assignment rotations, and the four‑year electoral cycle, versus the generational timelines of insurgent or hybrid actors. Adversaries exploit this short‑term horizon, embedding themselves in local societies and building enduring networks that outlast any single U.S. deployment. The result is a pattern of tactical victories that fail to translate into strategic stability, as seen in recent counter‑insurgency efforts where measurable gains did not secure lasting political outcomes.

Rolander’s remedy centers on reshaping incentives: introduce assessment frameworks that capture structural position, governance metrics, and behavioral population indicators; redesign career pathways to reward irregular‑warfare expertise; and reframe the civil‑military conversation around multi‑year commitments rather than election cycles. By treating irregular warfare as a permanent strategic pillar, the defense establishment can align resources, training, and promotion with the realities of modern competition, ensuring that the United States can influence both the battlefield and the hearts and minds of contested populations.