Key Features of Today's Wars

Military operations that took place after the end of the Cold War have quite different characteristics from the military operations that took place throughout history. Because the wars in this period took place between international coalitions and unconventional armed elements rather than the armies of the two states at war. These armed elements; It varies widely, from terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda, Taliban, PYD and ISIS to some criminal organizations.
In countries experiencing civil wars such as Syria and Libya, the struggle between the armed forces established by tribes, religious groups and various political groups, both among themselves and with the official state armies, has made the already complex concepts of conflict and war even more inextricable.
As if that wasn't enough, some companies started to appear on the battlefields after the US invasion of Iraq. The US company Blackwater has conducted many military operations in Iraq, including supporting the US Army and conducting special operations. The Russian company Wagner, on the other hand, takes part in the conflicts on behalf of Khalifa Haftar, a former general who tried to overthrow the legitimate government in the conflicts in Libya. Also in Haftar's ranks are the popular committees established by Gaddafi and some radical groups; Janjavid military gangs who fought with the rebels on behalf of the government in Sudan; There are people from a wide range of backgrounds, including rebels in Chad, some officers sent from Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and France.
This complex structure that emerged on the battlefields has changed the character, if not the nature, of the war.  Today, the concepts of war, politics and struggles with other national power elements other than armies are intertwined. Parallel to this, wars have ceased to be an activity that has a beginning and ends with a declaration of war and ends with a ceasefire or peace agreements, as it used to be.
Conflicts can start with a foreign intervention as in Afghanistan and Iraq and continue for years in the form of civil war. As in Syria and Libya, which of the warring parties is legitimate and which is illegitimate may vary according to each state and even each person. For this reason, every conflicting group, large or small, can find an interlocutor to a certain extent and can claim to be a legitimate armed force, even within a narrow framework. Thus, dozens of small armed groups can continue to exist in countries experiencing civil war.
As a result of this strange situation, while various armed groups with different views are fighting with each other, the states that support these groups directly or indirectly, in some way, actually enter the war environment. What is interesting here is that the states that support these groups are not considered to be at war with each other, although the groups that are in conflict with each other enter into a fierce struggle with each other.
For this reason, some scholars say that wars today are proxy wars. However, when the practices are looked at, it is understood that the current wars have an appearance far beyond proxy wars. Because, while the groups representing various states are fighting each other, the special units of the proxy states, air forces and some fire support vehicles are actually in the conflict areas and even participate in the conflicts.
For example, in Syria; Forces belonging to the Turkish, US, Iranian and Russian armies have actually taken their place in the field of operation. These army units do not engage in direct combat with each other. Instead, each army brings its own support group to the fore and acts as if they weren't there, but actively participates in conflicts from time to time, implicitly or openly.
As a result, while various groups seem to be fighting each other, the armies of the states that support these groups, even though they are in the background, also come into conflict with each other. This strange situation occasionally causes some developments that can have dangerous consequences (such as the downing of a Russian warplane by Turkish warplanes).
The new conflict environment has the potential to strike a blow to the alliance relations between countries. For example, the USA is the biggest supporter of the PYD Terrorist Organization, the Syrian branch of the PKK Terrorist Organization, which has been carrying out terrorist acts against Turkey, one of its most important allies in NATO, for years and which it considers a terrorist organization. Turkey did everything in its power to discourage the United States from this behavior and to expel the US soldiers from the PYD Terrorist Organization region, and even did not hesitate to cooperate with Russia, its historical enemy. But Turkey has taken action against some regions from which the US has withdrawn. When it starts to rise to the ground, Russia, with which it has close relations, instead of the USA, comes up against it, and Assad regime forces its soldiers into a significant part of the regions that Turkey plans to control.
On the other hand, organizations such as ISIS are considered a terrorist organization and therefore an enemy for almost every state and armed group in the area. For example, although the PYD Terrorist Organization has a hostile attitude towards Turkey, it is fighting against ISIS like Turkey. Normally, Turkey and the PYD Terrorist Organization seem to be supposed to be natural allies against ISIS, but since Turkey and the PYD Terrorist Organization consider each other enemies, Turkey does not want the PYD to seize the ISIS region, and the PYD and therefore the USA do not want Turkey to seize it.
Interestingly, Russia, Iran and the Assad regime, which are in conflict with the United States, do not want such a move by Turkey. In other words, interests and conflicts of interest have become multidimensional and as complex as possible. The concepts of friend and foe change according to time, place and who is in conflict with whom. It is not possible to explain this situation with classical war concepts. Therefore, new terms are introduced to describe the new situation.
In fact, the search for definitions of war is not new. After the end of the Cold War, when the Warsaw Pact collapsed and the threat definitions of the bipolar world order lost their validity, academics and military institutions tried to find new threat definitions suitable for the new situation and to develop new doctrines and concepts that meet these definitions. As a result of these efforts, in parallel with the emerging developments, many terms such as Non-linear Warfare, New Wars, Unrestricted Warfare, War on Terror and Compound Warfare has been put forth. But these terms fell short of describing the new conflicts that emerged. As a result, the search for new definitions and terms for war continued.
Recently, the concept of Hybrid Warfare has been used as a new term to describe the situation of war. The word hybrid, derived from the Latin hybrida, hybrida or ibrida, means mixture. In the Dictionary of the Turkish Language Association, the word hybrid is; described as "hybrid" or "coexistence of two different power supplies". Therefore, Hybrid Warfare can be defined as the coexistence or use of more than one power source in the battlefield.
With this; In addition to the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya and the methods used, the scope of the definitions for the terms Hybrid War and Operations in Hybrid Environment has been expanded with the effect of methods such as cyber warfare and electronic operations used by Russia in the process of occupying some of the Ukrainian lands.
The terms Hybrid Warfare or Operations in Hybrid Environment are now; in a way to meet the hybrid (mixed) threats and risks that spread over a wide range, multidimensional and difficult to predict, and contain uncertainties; military, political, technological, economic, sociological, informatics, media, civil-military cooperation and strategic communication capabilities are used simultaneously, and it is defined as a type of operation that requires multi-directional coordination.
According to this new definition, Hybrid Warfare and Operations in Hybrid Environment; In addition to conventional warfare, it also includes activities such as peace support operations, fighting against terrorists, supporting crisis management, show of force, blockade, embargo, humanitarian aid, preventing illegal immigration, combating piracy, perception management, and cyber warfare.
For this reason, the distinction between friend and foe has become difficult in the hybrid operation environment, private security organizations, non-governmental organizations, etc. actors have increased and the need for target detection and long-range accurate shooting systems has increased. It has become difficult to distinguish between peace and crisis periods, and the need to increase situational awareness with instant and accurate intelligence has emerged in the operational environment full of surprises. We were faced with an environment that was not connected to lines, where everywhere could be a contact line, and the importance of combat in built-up areas increased. The activities were carried out under the close monitoring of the media, so it became important not to allow mistakes and to be sensitive.
This situation has led to a tendency to make changes in the structures, doctrines and concepts of the armies. As a result, a new transformation has begun in the military field and this process is still continuing. In this context, it is understood that Turkey, which has been actively involved in most of the recently emerged conflict areas or is at risk of adversely affecting its national interests from these conflicts, has also started a transformation in its army with new practices and experiences arising from practice.
However, this change and transformation It should not be considered sufficient to do it with a reactive reaction following the treatment; The need for change and transformation should be systematically revealed according to the projections and predictions to be made for the future with proactive approaches. As a result, comprehensive innovations in organization, equipment and materials should be considered. In addition, new doctrines and concepts must be developed to suit the new situation. While doing this, it is considered that it would be beneficial to encourage not only the armed forces, but also non-military circles such as other institutions of the state, universities and think tanks, to work on this issue, in accordance with the spirit of the word hybrid.