Hearing of the House Armed Services Committee - Opening Statement by Rep. Smith, Hearing on the Evolution of Hybrid Warfare and Key Challenges

Hearing

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing on a topic of critical importance. Thank you as well to our witnesses for sharing their expertise on the evolution of hybrid warfare. I look forward to their views about how the United States should respond to hybrid threats and methods short of war.
 
Our adversaries, including Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran, are blending methods to achieve strategic ends, which seek to undermine Western democracies, the international order, and various international organizations. While the term hybrid warfare may not be precisely defined, it is clear that our adversaries are using blended irregular and conventional approaches to achieve these strategic goals.
 
For example, in the South China Sea, Chinese Coast Guard patrol vessels provide a continuous presence to reinforce China's claims in the region. The Russian Federation learned from its experience in Georgia to combine information operations with deployments of Russian special forces, and it used this hybrid approach effectively when it occupied Crimea. Russia also employed hybrid methods to enable separatist elements in the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
 
Hybrid threats and methods short of war are also evolving. Following the influence campaign perpetrated by the Russian Federation during the 2016 U.S. elections, reports appear to indicate that Russia is orchestrating a coordinated campaign to influence elections across Europe, disrupt international order, and exploit seams to push countries away from NATO and the European Union (EU).
 
What I'd like know is what we should be doing to address hybrid threats and methods short of war? How should we be postured to understand what our adversaries are doing, to deter them, and, if necessary, to respond appropriately to their use of hybrid methods?
 
Hybrid approaches tend to cross department and agency jurisdictions within the U.S. government. The challenge we have lies in establishing a robust, well-coordinated, and effective interagency response. Addressing hybrid methods will also require close coordination with our partners and allies across the spectrum of regional and functional areas affected by hybrid threats.
 
At its core, an effective U.S. response system would entail regional strategies, consistent coordinated messaging, and prioritization across the interagency, ultimately converging at--and with direction emanating from--the White House. I'm particularly concerned that any U.S. response to a hybrid threat today would be insufficiently coordinated and that the message from this Administration is that Russia is not a priority. 

Source