Fragmented frontiers: three approaches to understanding irregular warfare

Christian Tripodi

Small Wars and Insurgencies, 2025, vol. 36, issue 5, 917-944

Abstract: This article surveys current thinking, both academic and doctrinal, on the subject of irregular warfare. It argues that from a western perspective the debate has essentially resulted in three competing forms of understanding, what this paper terms the maximal, traditional, and competition-disruption models. Conceptually, all have certain strengths but also a number of highly significant weaknesses. It nevertheless proposes that the last of these, particularly when articulated as a form of ‘strategic disruption’, offers the most coherent vision of irregular warfare. Even then, significant gaps in reasoning still exist. Ultimately, the ability of western thinkers and doctrine writers to agree a common understanding of irregular warfare remains an inherently fragile endeavor.

Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09592318.2025.2468941 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:fswixx:v:36:y:2025:i:5:p:917-944

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/fswi20

DOI: 10.1080/09592318.2025.2468941

Access Statistics for this article

Small Wars and Insurgencies is currently edited by Paul Rich

More articles in Small Wars and Insurgencies from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().