Asymmetric warfare
Asymmetric warfare describes warfare in which the two belligerents are so mismatched in their military capabilities or accustomed methods of engagement that the militarily diasadvantaged power must press its special advantages or effectively exploit its enemy's particular weaknesses if they are to have any hope of prevailing. It is generally regarded as a component of fourth generation war.
Roots of the Concept
David and Goliath
Probably the earliest recorded example of asymmetric warfare is contained in the Biblical narrative of David and Goliath, in which the young David, future King of Israel, is supposed to have stunned the Philistine champion Goliath - reputed to be over 8 feet (~2.4m) tall - and then cut off the giant's head with his own sword.
As inspiration, the story is usually cited as a triumph of the weak over the strong, or the oppressed over the mighty, but in military terms, it was the triumph of planning and skill over brute force.
Hannibal
Hannibal attacked Roman forces on the Italian peninsula with a small military force, bolstered by loose alliances. He successfully used raids and threats to survive a Roman force that at times consisted of as many as 23 Legions, with another 15 Legions and two Consuls retained in Italy to thwart Hannibal. This expensive Roman response almost bankrupted the Empire.[1]
Post-Soviet incentives for asymmetric war
The end of World War II established the two most powerful victors, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soviet Union) as the two dominant world superpowers. In the rivalry that arose, small powers, especially those described as comprising the third world were able to seek protection from one power or the other, or play the powers against each other, to try to achieve parochial goals.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, powers that had been client states of the Soviet Union, states that were able to gain aid and support from the United States as "bulwarks" against Soviet power, and states that had successfully played the superpowers against each other found themselves with fewer options to defy US influence or extract material advantages from either of the former rivals.
Additionally, substantial powers that had been secondary to the two former superpowers, especially the nations of the European Union and the People's Republic of China have seen an opportunity to become the counterbalancing superpower to the United States.
These varying motivations have lead to a large amount of interest in ways to oppose the United States by using tactics different than those the U.S. is accustomed to.
Tactical basis
The tactical success of asymmetric warfare is dependent on at least one of two assumptions:
- If the inferior power is in a position of self-defense; i.e., under attack or occupation, it may be possible to use unconventional tactics, such as hit-and-run and selective battles where the superior power is weaker, as an effective means of harassment without violating the Laws of war. Variations of this tactic succeeded for the North Vietnamese and its allied forces in the Vietnam war, in that the local forces did not win the war by a straightforward defeat of the US forces, but rather tired out the superior power. Similar tactics worked for the American colonists in the American revolutionary war. It should be noted, however, that in both these cases, traditional battles were also fought in addition to guerilla tactics.
- If the inferior power is in an aggressive position, however, and/or turns to tactics prohibited by the laws of war (jus in bello), its success depends on the superior power's refraining from like tactics. For example, the Law of land warfare prohibits the use of using a flag of truce or clearly marked medical vehicles as cover for an attack or ambush, but an asymmetric combatant using this prohibited tactic depends on the superior power's honoring the corresponding rules prohibiting attacking those displaying a flag of truce or a medical vehicle. Similarly, laws of warfare prohibit combatants using civilian settlements, populations or facilities as military bases, but when an inferior power uses this tactic, it depends on the superior power respecting the law that they are violating, and not attacking that civilian target.
Asymmetric warfare and terrorism
Asymmetric warfare is not synonymous with terrorism; rather, terrorism is sometimes used as a tactic by the weaker side in an asymmetric conflict. Terrorism is sometimes called asymmetric warfare by advocates for partisans using terrorist methods to avoid the pejorative connotations of the word.
War by proxy
Where asymmetric warfare is carried out overtly but especially covertly, by alledgedly non-governmental actors who are connected to or sympathetic to a particular nation's (the "state actor's") interest, it may be deemed war by proxy. This is typically done to give deniability to the state actor. The deniability can be important to keep the state actor from being tainted by the actions, to allow the state actor to negotiate in apparent good faith by claiming they are not responsible for the actions of parties who are merely sympathizers, or to avoid being accused of belligerent actions or war crimes.
An example of war by proxy is where an insurgent group exists within the sovereign territory of another state, but disassociates itself from that state, as the Irish Republican Army in the Republic of Ireland. The IRA is banned in Ireland and it would be a considerable reach to suppose that they were secretly supported by that government, but the disassociation is intended to blunt the lesser charge that the government is not controlling a hostile group within its borders.
Another example of war by proxy is the multi-national presence of Al-Qaida, accused of carrying out the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States and many other terrorist attacks worldwide. The organization had been (and may still be) headquartered in Afghanistan, but apparently has members and operatives in many countries. The argument is proposed that this prevents an aggrieved nation from launching a military attack within a nation harboring Al-Queda members since such a nation can argue that Al-Queda might be within its borders but is an independent organization which the government does not support, whether or not the government sympathizes with their cause. The counter-argument is that Al-Queda members and other international terror groups do not exist in "disembodied space" or in international territory (i.e., the open seas, as pirates were claimed to do) but within the borders of a sovereign state, which is responsible to capture or expel members of such groups, or to allow aggrieved nations to attack them.
The end of conventional war?
Throughout the 20th century, all armies relied more and more on tactics of the guerilla, spy, saboteur, provocateur, double agent and even terrorist. This underscored that the advantages of having no tactical unit organization were greater than the control such units provide:
"Therefore when you induce others to construct a formation while you yourself are formless, then you are concentrated while the opponent is divided... Therefore the consummation of forming an army is to arrive at formlessness. When you have no form, undercover espionage cannot find out anything intelligence cannot form a strategy." - Sun Tzu
Age of amateurs?
Global trade and mass movement of people, modern seduction and "brainwashing" techniques, religious fanaticism, the political futility of opposing undemocratic leaders or occupying powers by non-violent means, and other factors combine to suggest that the most likely future assassin is not a high-priced pro, but rather an ordinary citizen who has no prior record and whose political motive is obscure or incomprehensible. Historian Barbara Tuchman suggests that the late-19th-century anarchist assassins who killed five European (and one American) head of state from 1880 to 1901, were of this category, and although all paid with their lives, none seemed to care.
Eric Hoffer, in The True Believer, 1951, characterized the fanatic as a person incapable of self-concern, but not someone wholly destitute - there was a certain level of economic prosperity wherein the ordinary citizen had no material threat to basic survival, but also insufficient recreation or any chance to advance socially. And that this tended to fuel mass movements.
When the first few female suicide bombers attacked Israeli targets in 2002, it sparked new fears that the methodology of brainwashing had transcended longstanding cultural boundaires, and was heralding an age of amateurs who would be deadly weapons in asymmetric warfare: unknown, uncaring, unable to be distracted or dissuaded from their mission, once they were set out on it.
Suicide society?
Although such tactics seem wasteful, disorganized and immoral to conventional unit commanders who seek to preserve their own men and morale, there are many societies where sacrifice for the whole is respected, or even encouraged. In particular Chinese tactics and Japanese tactics have emphasized this:
"Induce them to adopt specific formations, in order to know the ground of death and life." - Sun Tzu
Like the assassins of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy in the 1960s, or the modern suicide bombers, they would likely appear from nowhere, kill their target, and be quickly caught or be already dead. Their families or loved ones may well benefit, as in the case of Palestinian suicide bombers in the West Bank during the Intifada. They may believe in some afterlife of pleasure - as the original "Hashishim" did - or simply seek to sacrifice self for a loyalty group.
Urban warfare in asymmetric warfare
Unlike the conventional wars - where one army fights another army in wide open battlefields - the asymmetric warfare tends to take place inside densly populized urban terrain. Therefore, urban warfare is a prominent part of the asymmetric warfare. Usually, the weaker party is persuading the war to take place inside of its own cities for serveral reasons: 1. A populated city is much harder to conquer than an open field. 2. The urbanized city is much easier to defend because it is full with tall buildings, narrow alleys and sewage tunnels. The building can provide excellent sniping posts while the alleys are ideal for planting booby traps. 3. If the attacking force is a Western army, adhering to international law and western moral values, it must restrain from using heavy fire power and indiscriminate bombing. Thus, the party barricading in a city won't have to face warplanes, heavy artillery and massive tank assult. 4. "Media War": a war on urban terrain is bound to cause some civilian casualties and extreme damage to civilian property. Photos of dead civilians and ruined street broadcast on TV make a strong impact in favor of the party barricading in the city and undermine the morale of the attacking force. 5. Often, the barricading party is using the immunity that civilian gain under international law in order to prevent attacks on its combatants. It mainly does it by using "Human Shield" - a tactic which is declared a war crime. The use of the weaker party in Human Shield is mostly ignored by the world media and different human right organizations.
References
- Robert Kaplan, "The Coming Anarchy", The Atlantic Monthly, 1994?
- Barbara Tuchman, "The Proud Tower, Europe 1880-1914" re: anarchist assassins
- UN reports on use of child soldiers as assassins
- Sun Tzu 6