In September 1942 three airplanes carrying British soldiers crossed the border into Greece, this event symbolized the start of Operation Harling which was part of the special operations executive’s unconventional warfare campaign. The operation culminated in the destruction of the Gorgopotamos viaduct. The Operation is described as one of the most spectacular sabotage operations in axis occupied Greece and include the support of two local guerrilla. This study uses McRavens theory of relative superiority to help analyse how success was achieved in operation Harling through a qualitative text study. The purpose of the study is to examine the phenomenon of unconventional warfare through a single case study with McRavens theory of special operations. Furthermore, the study also investigates the explanatory power of McRavens theory. The results show that three out of McRavens six principles were present in the operation, simplicity, security and surprise. The theory states that all six principles must be accounted for to achieve relative superiority, therefore the success in Operation Harling cannot be solely explained by McRavens theory. Thus, the result indicates that further research must be concluded to shed light on the concept of unconventional warfare.

Syftet med uppsatsen är att beskriva det amerikanska begreppet ”Fourth Generation Warfare” ochanalysera dess trovärdighet och legitimitet för att generellt utreda vilken förmåga begreppet/teorinhar att beskriva och prediktera dagens och framtida krigs karaktär. Författaren har i huvudsak använtdeduktiv metod för uppsatsens genomförande. Utifrån teorin om fjärde generationens krigföringhar en hypotes formulerats som prövas genom två fallstudier, Afghanistan 2001-2002 ochIrak 2003. Hypotesen formulerades på följande sätt:Begreppet fjärde generationens krigföring är så vid i sin ansats att kontexten förloras varvid dennästan blir universell i sin tillämpning och därmed förlorar sin förklaringskraft och prediktionsförmågaavseende nutida och framtida krigs karaktär.För att kunna verifiera eller falsifiera hypotesen har krigets karaktär och framgångskriterier för deolika aktörerna analyserats för att därefter värdera resultatet mot fyra slutsatser från teorin samtandra förklaringsfaktorer. Resultatet av studien är att varken fallstudie Afghanistan eller Irak kanfalsifiera hypotesen eftersom endast fragment av teorin kan bekräftas. Hypotesen är således verifierad.Teorins trovärdighet kan med resultatet av denna studie ifrågasättas främst p.g.a. att denpåvisar en brist i den historiska kontexten, avsaknad av en djupare analys av konfliktorsaker samtatt aktörernas mål, medel och metod inte sammanbinds utan fokuserar på metoder i form av hotmot USA i framtiden. / The aim of this essay is to describe the American concept of “Fourth GenerationWarfare” and analyse the concept´s credibility and legitimacy and to generallyexplain the nature of today´s conflicts as well as the ability to predict thenature of future conflicts. The author has mainly used a deductive method ofcarrying out the analysis. Analysing the theory of ”Fourth Generation Warfare”has generated a hypothesis from the theory and an analytical tool has been derived.The hypothesis has then been tested through two case studies, Afghanistan2001-2002 and Iraq 2003. The outline of the hypothesis is as follows:The concept of the Fourth Generation Warfare is so wide and universal in itsapproach that it loses its contextual base and by that the ability to explain andpredict the nature of today´s and tomorrow´s conflicts.In order to verify or falsify the hypothesis, the author has analysed the natureof the conflict and the criteria for success in a wider perspective for the partiesinvolved, in order to provide a framework for the respective case study. Theanalytical tool, derived from the theory, was then used to analyse in what waythe theory can be confirmed by the respective case studies. The results of thisanalysis show that neither case study can fully confirm the theory and, consequently,neither can the hypothesis be falsified. The hypothesis has therebybeen verified. The credibility of the Fourth Generation Warfare theory can, as aresult of this essay, be questioned due to the fact that there is a gap in the historicalcontext. There is also a lack of understanding for a thorough analysis ofthe underlying roots and causes of the conflicts and finally it focuses too muchon methods and threats, excluding the ends and means of the different actors ina conflict. / Avdelning: ALB - Slutet Mag 3 C-uppsHylla: Upps. ChP 02-04