An unfair fight? The perils of asymmetrical warfare

Scripps Howard News Service ^ | 08-MAR-06 | CLIFFORD D. MAY

[FreedomCalls]

In a conventional war, if one side has tanks, fighter jets, submarines and similar weapons, while the other side does not, who wins? The answer is obvious.

In an unconventional war, if one side has suicide bombers, license to kidnap, torture and violate the laws of war while the other side must refrain from deploying such weapons and abide by all the rules, who wins? The answer, I'm afraid, may be equally obvious.

The United States is now engaged in what is called an "asymmetrical war," a conflict in which the two sides fight in different ways and using different weapons. ...

Asymmetrical warfare would be less effective if suicide-bombing women and children, decapitating aid workers and using civilians as shields evoked widespread public outrage and revulsion, if it brought shame and disrespect upon those who committed such acts and on the causes they claim to champion.

But, on the contrary, the trend has been to legitimize the tactics used against the West and indulge those employing them. Mass murdering civilians, torching churches and even mosques do not spark major protests anywhere. Nor has there been serious action in response from the United Nations, the international courts and prominent human rights organizations.

By contrast, what are alleged to be American violations of international laws are a constant source of media controversy and public protest.

/excerpt. More at the link

[FreedomCalls]

Very insightful. Read the whole thing.

[bkepley]

I think liberals are less tolerant of Islamic terrorists than they were of nationalist or communist (and they often considered them one and the same) terrorists. The more the Islamic terrorists continue with their despicable acts the more western states will be willing to employ less than immaculate methods against them, even nuclear if necessary.

[MNJohnnie]

Nonsense. They can destroy, they cannot create. The can form no shadow goverment, no "Safe havens" have created no "no go" areas. They still cannot move beyond the 1st level of Guerrilla war and are rabidly alienating the "SEA" in which the "fish" swim. The War on Terrorism is basically large scale gang warfare. The can cause fear and misery, commit murder and destroy, they cannot win.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Very good article, thanks.

If only someone with face time on a major network would explain the situation like this. The obvious inference is that the MSM and the Democrats want the USA to lose this war.

What we need to do we can't do because of the Democrats desire to impeach Bush at the drop of a hat. They will do anything to regain power and in that pursuit they want the enemy to win so the can criticize Bush and the Republicans and they want to have a reason to try to impeach Bush even though it would never succeed. As always with them , the accusation is enough.

With a free hand, meaning without having to go to Congress, the UN, and all the other people that will demand consultation, which in itself would destroy the effectiveness of the action, Bush should do what he originally said. Those who support the terrorists are equally guilty and will be dealt with as such.

Although he missed him, Reagan put a missile through Qaddafi's tent and straightened him up for awhile. Bush should do the same with Iran, Syria, the PLA, or whomever. If a terrorist attack cast suspicion on a country strike at the leadership. We don't need to wait for iron clad proof, only suspicion would suffice.

But once again, because we are a free country who follows a moral code, at least when the Republicans are in charge, we can't do what needs to be done. Maybe after the next president is elected Bush can act while still in office. Impeachment wouldn't be much of a threat then nor an unacceptable sacrifice for doing the right thing.

[DannyTN]

Articles like this make it sound like all the asymetrical advantages are in favor of the terrorists. When in fact, the asymetrical advantages that we have are phenominal.

"Many Western news organizations _ the Reuters wire service is just one example _ decline to be judgmental about those who set out to slaughter civilians. "

Isn't Reuters marjority owned by arabs or middle easterners? We need to quit considering it a "western news organization". But that's not to say that our other liberal western news organizations are not part of the problem.

[Nuc1]

I think they are on the cusp of no go areas in Europe and indeed of creating local shadow governments. I don't see us in Iran and Syria and the countries among others are safe havens.

[DeweyCA]

The extent to which elite Western opinion has internalized such views was prominently on display at last weekend's Academy Awards presentation. Nominated as best foreign film was "Paradise Now" _ a movie that explicitly justifies suicide-bombings. Nominated, too, was "Syriana," which lays the blame for the global conflict now underway not with the Militant Islamist movement but with the American government and American corporations. Also nominated was "Munich," which argues for a moral equivalence between terrorists and those who battle them.

Ah yes, the "progressive" Hollywood lefties and NYT cogniscenti are so chic and so sophisticated and intelligent compared to us dullards who see the terrorists as being terrorists who need to be defeated.

[DeweyCA]

What we need to do we can't do because of the Democrats desire to impeach Bush at the drop of a hat. They will do anything to regain power and in that pursuit they want the enemy to win so the can criticize Bush and the Republicans and they want to have a reason to try to impeach Bush even though it would never succeed. As always with them , the accusation is enough.

This is exactly the situation. Spot on.

[alloysteel]

Gaining supremacy in this conflict is rather like fighting a street gang. Good police work and gathering of intel from the civilian population, who report the comings and goings (anonymously, of course) of the various suspects, which leads to successful raids and incapacitation of the leadership.

[gogoman]

the term asymmetrical warfare refers to more than just terrorist activity (bombing busses, etc)...

conventional powers can also do asymmetrical warfare, but in a radically different way, and potentially much more damaging to US forces.

[Lejes Rimul]

Weren't you parroting those exact same tired talking points three years ago lol?

[attiladhun2]

That is correct. The communist guerrilla/national liberation movements of the later half of the 20th cen. would always first create a civilian council composed of loyal members of the communist party or the liberation movement. This group would seek safe haven in another Communist country or in one sympathetic to their cause. They would then recruit idealistic college students and others to train as guerrillas, under experienced mentors who were either veterans of other such wars, or who were graduates of Communist schools of political warfare.
Eventually they would infiltrate into the target country and go through further training in a remote area. They would establish ties to student and other front groups in the capital and other major cities. These groups would raise money, collect necessary equipment, disseminate propaganda, act as spies and couriers, organize demonstrations, and eventually engage in assassination and acts of terror.
When the guerrilla movement was properly trained and equipped in country and ties to the aforementioned groups established, low-level military operations would begin. These operations would be conducted, at first, by squad and platoon-sized units. Eventually, as sympathy for the movement grew and more recruits began to pour in, larger units would be created and the local people in the countryside would be formed into part-time militia units. The goal was the establishment of a regular army and the creation of a "parallel hierarchy" (i.e., a rival government).
Unlike the Jihadists, any terrorism conducted in the above scenario would have a specific purpose, to eliminate agents or supporters of the central government or to intimidate and strike fear in anyone who might contemplate betraying the movement. These Jihadists seem to lack any "party" discipline in their use of terror. It looks more and more like an indiscriminate exercise of violence. In this sense, it hasn't even reached any stage described in the literature dealing with guerrilla warfare.
Yes. These jihadists are nothing more than disjointed criminal gangs whose only hope is to create enough chaos so that we might withdraw in despair and give each gang an opportunity to carve out a rival thugocratic jihadistan in various parts of the country. And (just as in Afghanistan) eventually these groups will fight it out and the strongest will emerge on top.

[usmcobra]

Osama and his suicide bombers have a dream, they dream of a caliphate that extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific and all nations between under their control.

As long as they don't try to hold ground they can wage an asymmetrical war.

As soon as they try to control any country they have planned to govern in their Caliphate, they will lose against conventional forces.

In the end we will win, because they can't hold what they want with what they got.