The malaise that the United States, and the West, have experienced in recent campaigns stems in large part from unclear thinking about war, its political essence, and the strategies needed to join the two. Instead, analysis and response are predicated on entrenched theoretical concepts with limited practical utility. The inadequacy of understanding has spawned new, and not so new, terms to capture unanticipated trends, starting with the re-discovery of "insurgency" and "counterinsurgency" and leading to discussion of "hybrid threats" and "gray-zone" operations. New terminology can help, but the change must go deeper. Challenging analytical orthodoxy, this article sets out a unifying approach for the study of political violence, or more accurately: violent politics. It provides a conceptual foundation that helps to make sense of recent shifts in warfare. In effect, it offers sorely needed theoretical insights into the nature of strategy and guides the process of responding to nontraditional threats. KEYWORDS Strategy; counterinsurgency; terrorism; hybrid; gray zone The United States entered the 21st century brimming with confidence at its military and strategic prowess. The campaigns of the 1990s had provided opportunities to apply emerging technologies associated with the Revolution in Military Affairs, or RMA-satellites, precision bombs, and information technology-which appeared to give Washington a qualitative edge in contemporary conflict. Under the leadership of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and with the backing of President George W. Bush, the top priority for the U.S. defense establishment at the turn of the century was to transform itself to exploit fully this cutting-edge technology. As Bush (2001) put it in a major address in February 2001: "Influence is measured in information, safety is gained in stealth, and force is projected on the long arc of precision-guided weapons … The best way to keep the peace is to redefine war on our terms." Two decades on, the limitations of America's military strength have become clear. Rather than define war on its terms, the United States has