Asymmetrical War

[lionking]

I just heard the former Chief of the Australian Armed Forces, now retired and a Professor, Peter Leahy say in a radio interview that one of the problems with the war in Afghanistan is that it is asymmetrical. He raises the issue here with out making such a judgement about asymmetrical war being a problem:

http://www.canberrascene.com/eventcalendar/item.php?pid=6366

The old indicators of war - declaration, mobilisation, and large scale conflict between states - are no longer a reliable guide. Instead we have new indicators - undeclared, come as you are, among the people, asymmetric, against non-state actors, and involving all elements of national power.

Huh? I thought all wars were supposed to be as asymmetrical as one side could make it. Does anyone agree with the Professor's statement that asymmetrical war is a problem?

 

[quixotecoyote]

I just heard the former Chief of the Australian Armed Forces, now retired and a Professor, Peter Leahy say in a radio interview that one of the problems wit the war in Afghanistan is that it is asymmetrical. He raises the issue here with out making such a judgement about asymmetrical war being a problem:

http://www.canberrascene.com/eventcalendar/item.php?pid=6366



Huh? I thought all wars were supposed to be as asymmetrical as one side could make it. Does anyone agree with the Professor's statement that asymmetrical war is a problem?

Well, it depends what you're trying to achieve. For straight government v government altercations where you can smash the enemy military and go home, then no, asymmetrical warfare is great.

The problem comes in when you have to sustain a prolonged effort with no end in sight against an enemy whose strength isn't in a conventional military force and blends with the civilian populace. The enemy loses the military battles and wins the PR battles, as the scale of violence lowers to the point every dead soldier on your side spins as a tragedy and every civilian shield that dies spins as an atrocity.

Keep that rolling at a slow burn and the enemy manages to keep the hatred simmering in the local populace and the support growing in the opposition party(ies) in your country, countries sympathetic to your enemy's cause, and disinterested other countries with populations averse to conflict.

As far as I can see, there hasn't been a well developed counter to this. Well, unless you want to play with Russia-vs-Chechnya rules, but I doubt you do.

 

[Wolfman]

I don't think its anything new. When there are two military forces of roughly equal strength, they will generally seek to come to some sort of agreement as to "terms of engagement"...what is acceptable, what is not. Do you kill POWs, or use them as slave labor, or keep them as prisoners? Are civilians legitimate targets? What should be done when one side surrenders to the other?

War has a tendency, under such situations, to become more "civilized". We seek to create rules and principles by which "civilized" battle is undertaken, and because this is what we come to expect, we also develop our strategies and tactics based on this.

This works great until you find yourself in a situation where a significantly superior force is fighting a significantly inferior one. For the people on the losing side of that equation, adhering to the "civilized" rules of war means almost 100% certainty of defeat. So they have two choices...lose, or change their tactics.

Look at the American Revolution. A vastly superior British army (one that had conquered a significant portion of the world already) against upstart American rebels. The Brits had all their rules of engagement, all their strategies for a "civilized" war. You form your men up in ranks on an open battlefield, wait for your enemy to do the same, and then engage in head-to-head conflict. It was a strategy that, if the Americans had adhered to it, would likely have seen them defeated.

But they didn't. They engaged in "asymmetrical warfare". They didn't fight the Brits on their terms, lining up on a battlefield and waiting to be cut down. They engaged in raids that harried the Brits, without giving them much chance to respond. They ambushed them. They shot at them from behind trees, instead of standing on an open field.

Today, the U.S. has (by pretty much any definition) overwhelming military power. And anyone who seeks to go to war with them on their terms is pretty much guaranteed to lose. In fact, anyone seeking to fight with them is absolutely insane to engage in head-to-head 'conventional' confrontation with the U.S. It is suicide. You might as well just surrender now, cuz you don't have a chance of winning.

It is inevitable, therefore, that these opponents will change, and adopt other strategies. Not only is there nothing surprising about this, one should entirely anticipate and expect it to happen.

Which renders me rather dumbfounded at American responses...the apparently implicit assumption that everyone else in the world should engage in war on American terms. That anyone going to war with the U.S. should adopt strategies that ensure an American victory.

Call it "asymmetrical war", or whatever else you want...but any even remotely competent strategist should not only anticipate it, they should operate on the very reliable assumption that it will happen. And strategies should be developed accordingly. And any military or government leader who instead sits around complaining about how the enemy won't "fight fair", and how the enemy is so damn inconsiderate that they won't fight the way the Americans want them to, should be immediately removed from their position and given responsibility more fitting to their mindset...like managing a McDonald's restaurant, for example.


ETA: The comments in the OP referenced an Australian, not an American; but since it is referring to a war in which the U.S. is the primary force, and Australian (or others) generally operate under the same strategies and assumptions, I think my comments are still relevant.

 

[lionking]

Two good responses, thanks. I'll think this over a bit more.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Does anyone agree with the Professor's statement that asymmetrical war is a problem?

No. You are correct. You make every advantage you can, and you take advantage of any seam or weakness your enemy provides. The aim is to win.

 

[quixotecoyote]

No. You are correct. You make every advantage you can, and you take advantage of any seam or weakness your enemy provides. The aim is to win.

I think you're getting stuck on moral versus practical, as asymmetrical warfare does present some practical problems.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I think you're getting stuck on moral versus practical, as asymmetrical warfare does present some practical problems.

No, I'm not stuck on much of anything, since my response to lion king made no distinction between the kinetic and the political/moral at all, but you just assumed on one your own.

Do you understand my point better now?

 

[quixotecoyote]

No, I'm not stuck on much of anything, since my response to lion king made no distinction between the kinetic and the political/moral at all, but you just assumed on one your own.

Do you understand my point better now?

Ahh, then you should probably clarify some more, because with that clarification your post is stating there are no practical problems with waging asymmetrical warfare and then talking about grabbing every advantage you can. As I pointed out above, there are problems with waging asymmetrical war because of the enemy grabbing every advantage they can.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I just heard the former Chief of the Australian Armed Forces, now retired and a Professor, Peter Leahy say in a radio interview that one of the problems with the war in Afghanistan is that it is asymmetrical. He raises the issue here with out making such a judgement about asymmetrical war being a problem:

What a strange thing for him to say. Australia has been fighting aysmmetrical wars since Korea. There was the "War of the running dogs" (Malaya anti-insurgency campaign in the 50s & 60s), The Vietnam War and the recent anti-insurgency war against Indonesia in East Timor. If anything I thought Australia was quite used to these sorts of wars.

 

[Wolfman]

Ahh, then you should probably clarify some more, because with that clarification your post is stating there are no practical problems with waging asymmetrical warfare and then talking about grabbing every advantage you can.

I've read and re-read what DR wrote. Nowhere can I see him stating that, "there are no practical problems with waging asymmetrical warfare". What he said was that people can and should take every advantage that they can in seeking to win.

There may be problems inherent in adapting such a strategy, but then, I don't think I've ever heard of a war that didn't have problems. But it still seems to me to be a fundamentally found precept that if one seeks to win, then one does whatever is necessary to secure that victory. If there are practical problems caused by that, then you deal with them.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I've read and re-read what DR wrote. Nowhere can I see him stating that, "there are no practical problems with waging asymmetrical warfare".

Well, call me crazy, but this is where I got that:

Does anyone agree ... asymmetrical war is a problem?

No. You are correct. You make every advantage you can, and you take advantage of any seam or weakness your enemy provides. The aim is to win.

With the following text justifying the reasoning, which I was trying to figure out how he thought it did so.

 

[Wolfman]

Well, call me crazy, but this is where I got that:

With the following text justifying the reasoning, which I was trying to figure out how he thought it did so.

I think that you're taking his quote entirely out of context...the "problems" you are referring to are not the "problems" he was referring to.

Now, allow me to reverse this a little, and go back to one of your quotes:

As I pointed out above, there are problems with waging asymmetrical war because of the enemy grabbing every advantage they can.

Are you claiming that in a symmetrical war, the enemy will not try to grab every advantage they can? I don't grasp the argument here. The enemy is, pretty much by definition, going to be seeking to win, and to take every advantage that they can to achieve that victory. Symmetrical, asymmetrical, polysymmetrical, omnisymmetrical, antisymmetrical...doesn't matter what label ya' slap on it, the same "problem" is always going to be there.

 

[WildCat]

Look at the American Revolution. A vastly superior British army (one that had conquered a significant portion of the world already) against upstart American rebels. The Brits had all their rules of engagement, all their strategies for a "civilized" war. You form your men up in ranks on an open battlefield, wait for your enemy to do the same, and then engage in head-to-head conflict. It was a strategy that, if the Americans had adhered to it, would likely have seen them defeated.

But they didn't. They engaged in "asymmetrical warfare". They didn't fight the Brits on their terms, lining up on a battlefield and waiting to be cut down. They engaged in raids that harried the Brits, without giving them much chance to respond. They ambushed them. They shot at them from behind trees, instead of standing on an open field.

Is that what they taught you Loyalists in school?

 

[Mycroft]

It is inevitable, therefore, that these opponents will change, and adopt other strategies. Not only is there nothing surprising about this, one should entirely anticipate and expect it to happen.

Which renders me rather dumbfounded at American responses...the apparently implicit assumption that everyone else in the world should engage in war on American terms. That anyone going to war with the U.S. should adopt strategies that ensure an American victory.

What about the implicit assumption that while everyone else is changing the rules in response to American superiority, that Americans should not change their rules to adapt to this?

We should get to play to win too, right?

 

[Wolfman]

What about the implicit assumption that while everyone else is changing the rules in response to American superiority, that Americans should not change their rules to adapt to this?

We should get to play to win too, right?

I'm sorry...where did I say anything that even suggested such an assumption? I do have concerns with the U.S. military, but it doesn't have much at all to do with the point you raised. Rather it is:

1) Because of the grossly incompetent and arrogant manner in which the entire Iraq campaign was managed. The entirely idiotic assumption that all they had to do was go in, defeat Saddam, create a democracy...and boom, presto! They'd have a free, stable, democratic nation. They didn't have a freakin' clue what they were getting into, and rather than admitting their ignorance, they reveled in it, ignoring the voices of those who might actually have been able to give them understanding of the real situation.

2) Because of the reasons for the war. I'm not opposed to the American military action in Afghanistan, for example (and I support pretty much any tactic that can rid the world of Bin Laden); it was a direct response to a direct attack launched against the U.S. with the implicit support of the government of that country. But I am opposed to the war in Iraq, which was done for political reasons, and justified with blatant lies.

But I will add one thing here. I'm not going to hold the U.S. to personal standards of "how I think things should be done"...but I am going to hold them to their own standards. The U.S. gov't regularly trumpets itself as the "defender of democracy and freedom", and claims human rights and equality among its most basic values.

You don't get to claim such things, and then turn around and ignore them because they're inconvenient. The Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, deporting prisoners to countries where they know they'll be tortured...these are among a long, long list of actions that go directly against the stated principles and values of the U.S. If they are gonna' do that...fine. But stop the nonsense about being the world's savior, or the defender of freedom. And stop asking countries who actually do believe such values are important to support them.

ETA: I don't think this is an 'American' thing...its a 'human' thing. Give any single nation overwhelming power, and they're gonna' use it. The combination of the belief that their power 'proves' they are right, and the fact that nobody else has the power to oppose them, makes this a pretty much unavoidable result.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm sorry...where did I say anything that even suggested such an assumption? I do have concerns with the U.S. military, but it doesn't have much at all to do with the point you raised. Rather it is:

My apologies, I should have phrased that better. I should have raised the question without sounding like I was trying to pin that opinion on you. I’m not trying to confront you, I’m just considering the ideas you raise.

However, something like that might be derived from a statement like this:

But I will add one thing here. I'm not going to hold the U.S. to personal standards of "how I think things should be done"...but I am going to hold them to their own standards. The U.S. gov't regularly trumpets itself as the "defender of democracy and freedom", and claims human rights and equality among its most basic values.

Doesn’t holding them to “their own standards” amount to the same thing if those standards are the standards developed for the same kind of conflict where we have the overwhelming advantage? Standards that our new enemies refuse to abide by? If we were to announce that our standards were to change and then do something objectionable by the old standards, would that be okay?

For example, the expanded use of predator drones. We really like them because they allow us to bring force to very remote regions to strike at enemies without putting any of our own lives at risk, but some people consider them to be “targeted assassinations” and illegal. They might have a point…but we really like them and are not likely to give them up. You’ve already said you personally support any tactic that might rid the world of Bin Laden, so I’m not trying to pin an anti-predator drone opinion on you, but it’s an example of what I was thinking of in my previous post.

Other points:

1) My opinion on the Iraq war is similar to yours, where I might disagree is I believe the issue became moot the moment we place boots on the ground over there.

2) I also tend to agree that we didn’t have a “freakin’ clue” what we were getting into. At the same time I’d say the ignorance all over the political spectrum was profound.

3) I don’t think Americans believe our power “proves” we’re right, except for some nut-jobs, but I’d agree the Bush administration certainly felt having that power meant they didn’t have to answer to anyone.

 

[dudalb]

Is that what they taught you Loyalists in school?

Hell, that is the way the Revolutonary war is viewed in a lot of US schools.
Totally wrong, of course. (the vast majority of the battles of the Revolutionary war were straight up classic 18th Century Lineal battles, with both sides trying to be Frederick The Great).
Yeah there was guerilla activity in the South, but not to the extent commonly assumed.

 

[dudalb]

And if does not help that Afghanistan is where Asymmatrical warfare lives. Forget the British in the Victorian era Alexander The Great faced the same problem.

 

[MikeMangum]

Asymmetrical warfare is a term often used as a synonym for guerilla warfare. Unconventional.

The problem with that type of warfare, as opposed to a fairly straightforward class of armies, is that civilians are almost invariably used as cover. This results in significantly greater moral ambiguity, and of course, greater civilian casualties.

 

[WildCat]

Hell, that is the way the Revolutonary war is viewed in a lot of US schools.
Totally wrong, of course. (the vast majority of the battles of the Revolutionary war were straight up classic 18th Century Lineal battles, with both sides trying to be Frederick The Great).
Yeah there was guerilla activity in the South, but not to the extent commonly assumed.

Well we have a street named after Casimir Pulaski and a high school after von Steuben, not to mention that 6 blocks down the street from me the local German organization throws a big von Steuben Day beerfest... mmmmm, beer.

2 guys brought over to help train the regulars.

And the British also used guerilla warfare, particularly the ones commanding their Indian allies in the frontier.