Never Ending Irregular Wars and Information: A Conjecture
http://conflictoaprendizaje.univalle.edu.co/Articulos/never.pdf

In this article, Boris Salazar introduces an argument in which he describes how “irregular wars” (versus conventional wars) fundamentally alters the underlying social structure, and disallows the flow of information, resulting in the “never ending wars” conjecture.

The Department of Defense defines irregular warfare as:
“Warfare that seeks to erode an adversary’s power and will primarily by applying or countering indirect, nontraditional means, such as forms of combat involving peer-to-peer fighting between the regular armed forces of two or more countries. … The following, though not all-inclusive, occur within irregular warfare: insurgency/counterinsurgency, unconventional warfare, terrorism/counterterrorism, foreign internal defense, stability operations, psychological operations, civil military operations, information operations, intelligence / counterintelligence operations.” Guerilla warfare is an example of irregular warfare. Conventional warfare, on the other hand, seems to deal more with two opposing factions that fight for the conquest of land or for destruction of the opposing faction. These definitions are somewhat vague.

Salazar argues that in conventional warfare, there is a definite flow of information throughout each warring society. For example, information was clearly spread of whether the society won or lost the war. However, in irregular warfare, information flow is disruptive and indefinite, causing travel of information to be much slower.

He lists three criterion used to define a type of warfare’s degree of information transparency:
1) Uncertainty – concerning friend or enemy
2) Hierarchical flow of information from military/warriors to civilians
3) Civilian roles and the uncertainty in their allegiance

Salazar claims that the flow of information during a war depends on the social structure. If there is instability in the social structure or dynamic changes, then the flow of information changes along with it. Unstable information flow leads to uncertainty in the outcome.
In conventional wars, information cascades in a hierarchical flow travel from the commanding officers to the civilians. The degree of information transparency reflects on the stability of a society’s structure. Therefore, “wars in which information stays in a state of flux, in a middle point between full disorder and order, are prone to become never ending or to last for longer than armed conflicts with different information structures”.

It is interesting to read Salazar’s argument of how stability, or lack thereof, of information flow within factions and even between factions affects the duration of war. Wars like guerrilla warfare, or what is defined as “irregular wars”, cause changes to a society’s structure, disrupting information flow, and increasing chaos and uncertainty. I’d be interested to see if and how military strategy incorporates the effects of information flow and cascades into creating shorter, more “productive” wars, so to speak.