Irregular Warfare in an Era of Great Power Competition

Develop a short essay which addresses the following questions:
Does irregular warfare in the context of Great Power Competition have fundamentally different characteristics than irregular warfare against small insurgent powers? Why or why not? Defend your answer with material from the course.
Support and defend your position.
Length: 750-850 words.
*When you place your in-text citation within the answer, please input your page number where you found the information. Example: (Hodges 2003, 176)., Hodges (2003, 176) discussed..., In a 2003 article, Hodges (176) discussed.
The instructor likes a decent amount of in- text citations within the paper. Please site your sources throughout.
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS:
Please see notes from my instructor regarding this essay. I hope this helps with writing the paper. Thank you.
Thinking about Irregular Warfare
As you work on your essay on how similar or different irregular Warfare in Great Power Competition is from the small-scale insurgencies of the recent past, there are some themes that we should pay attention to in a historical context. We shouldn’t just think about recent irregular conflicts, but analyze many others throughout history. For instance, few people really understand how the Serbians destabilized the Balkans before the Great War broke out, specifically regarding border conflicts and terrorism with Austria and other Balkan states. Greater powers argued over and around the Serbs, which helped create the impetus for the Great War in 1914. The American Revolution is another example because it is an irregular war stuffed within a conventional one. In fact, Mao Zedong was heavily influenced by George Washington’s generalship during the American Revolution during his fight against Nationalist China in the Chinese Civil War (and also against the Japanese in their conquest of China). I’d also look at how irregular warfare was utilized during the Cold War and how the great powers worked with their proxies but also were influenced by them.
There are a few things that I should also point out. While irregular warfare does present a lot of problems for conventional armies, they are not superhuman and we shouldn’t over-determine it. Too often people think that the jungles of Vietnam will magically transport to XYZ area. They also overthink how irregular forces can operate- and give them strategic powers that they don’t have. For every Vietnam War, there’s a Malaysian Emergency or Filipino Insurrection. I’d also look at what happens when irregular forces try to stand up as conventional forces. Also, many irregular/grey zone tactics won’t work if a conflict goes “hot” and conventional measures that were off-limits are no longer.
We should also consider the role that the media plays in irregular wars (in the past through to the present), and how they act as a force multiplier and influencer regarding the conduct of the war. Don’t forget that the media has to fill space on their 24/7 news networks and online outlets need clickbait. It’s also important to understand how the military reacts to media- and also pay attention to politicians who want to stay in office, or remove a rival from it (often with the support of the media). This is not to over-determine the value of the media or the political situation, but to point out how they can affect the outcome of all forms of war and impact great power competition.
Think about history- in the deep past and recent memory- and also work on thinking outside of the box.