Asymetric Warfare

Originally posted by ivanterrible

Your 'definition' of Asymetric Warfare is noted, I think your 'containing' the meaning and intent of this type of warfare though.

Of course your definition has meaning, however your leaving many 'possibilties' out of the equation, just because you say attacking yourself, and false-flags are out of the question, does'nt make it so.

That's not my definition of Asymmetric warfare- it's the doctrinal definition.
The larger force isn't the one using Asymmetric warfare- they're are responding to it, and having to counter it. It's not synonymous with dirty tricks, which is where I think you're getting confused.

dictionary.reference.com...
a·sym·met·ric /ˌeɪsəˈmɛtrɪk, ˌæsə-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-suh-me-trik, as-uh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. not identical on both sides of a central line; unsymmetrical; lacking symmetry:

www.army.mil...

-Using asymmetric tactics, adversaries attempt to exploit their ability to hide in plain sight and attack U.S. forces in ways that are unconventional, unexpected and that turn the U.S. Army's own operating techniques against itself. Examples of these vulnerabilities are readily apparent. The reliance on vehicle road movement creates many opportunities for roadside bombs, for instance.

-Some of our adversaries are not bound by the laws we value and which regulate U.S. military actions. They strive to exploit worldwide press coverage of visual effects, civilian casualties and our purported weak national will in order to distort the truth and to undermine U.S. national resolve and the resolve of foreign partners. Attacks, often in the form of bombings, rogue mortar attacks and kidnappings, serve to highlight the challenge conventional forces face in not only protecting themselves but also the indigenous population against insurgent cells, who are principally armed with patience, ideological fervor and resourcefulness. Insurgent attacks are often able to achieve local advantages, which taken separately are not operationally significant, but which when executed as part of an overall campaign of terror and intimidation have the capacity to generate operational or strategic effects.

Contributing to the significant effects of these asymmetric attacks are the enemy's demonstration of continuous innovation and adaptability. He studies U.S. actions and reactions and, because of his size, flexibility and lack of accountability, is able to change his techniques rapidly. As a result, conventional units lacking the ability to quickly identify asymmetric tactics and devise effective countermeasures may intentionally or unintentionally change mission focus from killing the enemy to protecting the force.

It seems your 'Bogged Down' on the definition again, nobody's arguing that the lesser opponent uses this type of warfare against the superior enemy, that's a given.

If your a military employee, and with some clout, It's no wonder the U.S. military is in a quagmire in Iraq. With that type of 'Bogged Down' thinking of what a definition is and is'nt, it clearly shows (contained-thinking) this is exactly what the idiot Rumsfeld, and the other High Brass in the Pentagon did'nt realize when they (illegally) invaded Iraq.

I'd bet anyone that the 'Brass' in the Pentagon are still to this day arguing about what is Asymetric Warfare, and what is'nt, (goverment mentality.) It's interesting to note though, The war in Afghanistan is a classic Guerrilla War being played by the "supposed enemy," while the war in Iraq is a classic Asymetrical battle being waged by the 'enemy.'

Originally posted by ivanterrible
It seems your 'Bogged Down' on the definition again, nobody's arguing that the lesser opponent uses this type of warfare against the superior enemy, that's a given.

If your a military employee, and with some clout, It's no wonder the U.S. military is in a quagmire in Iraq. With that type of 'Bogged Down' thinking of what a definition is and is'nt, it clearly shows (contained-thinking) this is exactly what the idiot Rumsfeld, and the other High Brass in the Pentagon did'nt realize when they (illegally) invaded Iraq.

I'd bet anyone that the 'Brass' in the Pentagon are still to this day arguing about what is Asymetric Warfare, and what is'nt, (goverment mentality.) It's interesting to note though, The war in Afghanistan is a classic Guerrilla War being played by the "supposed enemy," while the war in Iraq is a classic Asymetrical battle being waged by the 'enemy.'

I just have a problem when terms are used incorrectly. Apparently that's what's responsible for causing the problems in Iraq. If only I'd learn that it doesn't matter how you use terms or definitions, we'd all be better off.
FWIW, the war in Afghanistan is Asymmetric too, as it is in the Horn of Africa, the Phillipines, the drug war in South America, etc... Guerillas/insurgents/terrorists/narco traffickers, etc.. when fighting against a larger opponent, are using Asymmetric warfare.

Doesn't matter if its a just war or a unjust war. If the U.S. military cannot able to comprehend asymmetric warfare, then we lose no matter what.

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by ivanterrible
It seems your 'Bogged Down' on the definition again, nobody's arguing that the lesser opponent uses this type of warfare against the superior enemy, that's a given.

If your a military employee, and with some clout, It's no wonder the U.S. military is in a quagmire in Iraq. With that type of 'Bogged Down' thinking of what a definition is and is'nt, it clearly shows (contained-thinking) this is exactly what the idiot Rumsfeld, and the other High Brass in the Pentagon did'nt realize when they (illegally) invaded Iraq.

I'd bet anyone that the 'Brass' in the Pentagon are still to this day arguing about what is Asymetric Warfare, and what is'nt, (goverment mentality.) It's interesting to note though, The war in Afghanistan is a classic Guerrilla War being played by the "supposed enemy," while the war in Iraq is a classic Asymetrical battle being waged by the 'enemy.'

I just have a problem when terms are used incorrectly. Apparently that's what's responsible for causing the problems in Iraq. If only I'd learn that it doesn't matter how you use terms or definitions, we'd all be better off.
FWIW, the war in Afghanistan is Asymmetric too, as it is in the Horn of Africa, the Phillipines, the drug war in South America, etc... Guerillas/insurgents/terrorists/narco traffickers, etc.. when fighting against a larger opponent, are using Asymmetric warfare.

Guess who's behind all those nasty organizations you speak of?

Originally posted by deltaboy
Doesn't matter if its a just war or a unjust war. If the U.S. military cannot able to comprehend asymmetric warfare, then we lose no matter what.

Oh they comprehend, trust me on that. The problem is the Political Establishment at home does'nt understand, The only way to beat a 'phantom-enemy' is to decimate the city, clear out the rubble, and then send in the soldiers for search and destroy. But that will never happen in this 'Politically-Correct" world of B.S.


Now what you have is a Quagmire, A no-win situation, where-in the poor soldiers have to fight with one hand tied behind their back, lest they get court martialed for defending themselves. Who in the world would want to fight under those circumstances?

Originally posted by ivanterrible

Oh they comprehend, trust me on that. The problem is the Political Establishment at home does'nt understand, The only way to beat a 'phantom-enemy' is to decimate the city, clear out the rubble, and then send in the soldiers for search and destroy. But that will never happen in this 'Politically-Correct" world of B.S.


Now what you have is a Quagmire, A no-win situation, where-in the poor soldiers have to fight with one hand tied behind their back, lest they get court martialed for defending themselves. Who in the world would want to fight under those circumstances?

Agreed you on that part. As I have mentioned that when having conventional forces at your disposal, you could wipe everything out and pretty much win. But in this world where cameras everywhere on tv and people could be outrage by any possible American atrocities against civilians, it does not matter anymore. So the U.S. military has to do things differently now. No more firebombing cities or whatever. Unless the American people accept the alternative that victory requires extreme measures.

Originally posted by ivanterrible
The only way to beat a 'phantom-enemy' is to decimate the city, clear out the rubble, and then send in the soldiers for search and destroy.

What makes you think that you have any chance of winning that way?
You'd kill a lot of people, but I don't think any of them would be the enemy - and you would create many, many more enemies around the world.

I'm simply going to give my opinion as to why I think 9-11 is connected to the U.S. Military. I will provide links to read, to assert my 'opinions.'


Asymmetric Warfare is conected to 9-11 in that the U.S. Government deliberately used Al-Queda, a CIA creation, to destabilize the middleast and control the world's magor oilfields. A document entitled PNAC (Project for a New American Century,) clearly lays out the strategy for world domination by the U.S. Military. here's a synopsis of it's strategy.

en.wikipedia.org...

America had outlined its blueprint for world domination, by force if necessary, in the following documents:

National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2001

President George W Bush's speech at the Graduation Ceremony at West Point, June 1, 2002

Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for the New Century, a report of the Project for the New American Century, September 2000

Defense Planning Guidance written by then deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz in February 18, 1992

In these documents, the US outlined some of its new doctrines and policies, such as: preventive war, pre-emptive military action, unilateralism, regime change, acting as the world's constabulary or "cavalry", establishment of military bases and spreading US forces all over the world, control of outer space and the global commons of cyberspace and control of the world's oil resources.

Al-Qaeda, a CIA creation used for terrorism around the globe. Also the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood also had CIA ties, and as such is just another front group of the Military Intelligence.

prisonplanet.tv...

www.infowars.com...

en.wikipedia.org...




The Military Industrial Complex

Here's a few CIA created companies that have many ties to the 9-11 horror, Especially Mitre, the only organization capable of managing, planning, and executing a Military Operation such as 9-11.

justanotherblowback.blogspot.com...

www.mitre.org...

www.mitre.org...

Remember The Miltary Industrial Complex, and it's relation to IRAQ, you know all the Money whirling around.

onlinejournal.com...


The Bush Timeline

The first 'magor incident' during the Bush Administration was'nt 9-11, it was the EP-3 spyplane incident in China, I believe it was purposely allowed to be taken down by the Chinese.

archives.cnn.com...

On board that plane was classified electronics, such as military transponders, (mode-3) Commercial Aviation does'nt use these, the Chinese gutted all the planes electronics. It relates to 9-11 cause Mode-3 transponders can fool Commercial Aviation Officials.

www.house.gov...

www.enri.go.jp...

Remember MODE-3 transponders, as they are Miltary only, I think more advanced transponders are currently used now. it most certainly has 9-11 conections!!!

www.answers.com...



Military Explosives and 9-11

Now I know i'm dragging on, and on here, but i'll finish by saying 9-11 was a Military Operation plain and simple, if you read about explosives and stuff you'll see that the WTC towers wre 'blown' by what type of explosives remains sketchy.
www.military.com...


I know it's hard to believe that the U.S. Military could be involved in 9-11, but logic and certain facts say otherwise. IMO.....

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

You have yet to use the term Asymmetric Warfare correctly. If you want to draw conclusions about the CIA, Al Qaeda, the Military Industrial Complex, PNAC, or whatever, that's your prerogative, but use terms correctly please as definitions have nothing to do with what your opinion is.

One last time- Asymmetric Warfare = a small force against a large one, using unconventional tactics to overcome the firepower disparity.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
You have yet to use the term Asymmetric Warfare correctly. If you want to draw conclusions about the CIA, Al Qaeda, the Military Industrial Complex, PNAC, or whatever, that's your prerogative, but use terms correctly please as definitions have nothing to do with what your opinion is.

One last time- Asymmetric Warfare = a small force against a large one, using unconventional tactics to overcome the firepower disparity.

I think I've used the term correctly, Again, unconventional warfare, this means anything goes, regardless of what your 'defintion' says. BlueRaja I think you have misunderstood my application and meaning about Asymmetric Warfare.


I'll state my position again, AL-Qaeda, a CIA creation used for Terroristic purposes. If this does'nt fit your definition, I don't know what will??? You say a Small force against a larger force yes, Of course that's a standard defintion. I'm simply saying it's more than that. I simply don't understand why your stuck on the dictionary meaning of Asymmetric Warfare???

Because words mean things. If I say a car is blue and you know what blue is, you know what I mean. If we can't agree on what blue means then we will never be able to arrive at any sort of understanding. Asymmetric warfare is not analogous to being sneaky, dirty tricks, etc..
The word asymmetric means a disparity in sizes. When used with regards to warfare, it has a very specific meaning(i.e. a small force can't hope to confront a larger one, with more firepower in a head to head engagement. This is why they have to fight the larger force on terms that give them a fair shot or advantage such as using a chokepoint where the large force can't maximize it's firepower and is vulnerable, or hitting the larger force in the rear echelons, or winning the local populace over through aid/or intimidating the local populace so they're uncooperative, etc....) You have to look at what the word asymmetric means, and the slant your coming from just doesn't have anything to do with that word.
If you want to say that some other type of tactic is happening(i.e. ruse/perfidy/treachery/false flag etc...), those would better fit what you are describing.

I understand where you are coming from about your views on the CIA/Al Qaeda/MIC/PNAC. I don't agree with them, but I understand them. It's your prerogative to believe what events have transpired, but you are misusing the term.

Additionally, unconventional warfare doesn't mean anything goes. Even Special Forces units aren't allowed to commit war crimes. They have guidelines that they have to follow. Now the nature of what they do, reduces some of the protections of the Geneva/Hague conventions, because they may not be in uniform, and are conducting ops that while legal under conventions, place them in the same category as spies, saboteurs, etc..

en.wikipedia.org...

www.goarmy.com...

Some great posts here, but way off topic.

Because I did not fully understand Asymetric Warfare, I have carried out research for a few months.

I have looked at Wikipedia, the Pentagon, RMA Sandhurst and all the other oddball elements that lurke on the fringes of so called 'black' ops.

According to my research the United States - being the world's remaining true superpower, is absolutely terrified of it's enemies [real or perceived] fighting, waging legitimate warfare or carrying out acts of war within the borders of the continental US.

Also Asymetrical Warfare is described as being when two beligerants or combatants are engaged in warfare, [where] one is bigger and more powerful [than the other] and the weaker beligerent will try to out-think, outsmart and outmanoeuvre it's bigger and more powerful opponent [in order to bring about it's destruction] (This I believe is happening in Iraq)

It may also surprise our friends from across the Pond, that use of Asymetric Warfare by an occupied country (where it's civilians or military seek to destroy the occupying forces by waging a guerilla war or armed resistence) is covered by the Modern Laws of Armed Conflict and, as such, should not be labelled as terrorists or criminals but should be treated as legitimate combatants - as defined the Geneva Convention.

I can now see and understand where the USA is coming from, in regards to personnel held at Guantanamo Bay BUT, you Yanks can't have it both ways.

On the one hand you call those detained in Afghanistan and Iraq as
'combatants' whilst on the other hand, you call those fighting against you [especially] in Iraq, as terrorists.

However, having said that, the Geneva Convention is also quite clear about what are classed as Irregular Troops.

With regards to Iraq in particular, where private security firms are operating [with or without governmental sanctions, for whatever purposes] they are regarded as Mercenaries under the Geneva Convention and the Modern Laws of Armed Conflict and have no legal protections.

As such, if captured by either side, they may quite legally, be shot out of hand!

It is my belief that British and American, Polish, Russian, German and French security firms, are waging Asymetric Warfare against the Iraqis with carte blanche from the commander US forces.

To date, there is very little proof of that, but sooner or later, somebody will spill the beans.

Originally posted by fritz

It is my belief that British and American, Polish, Russian, German and French security firms, are waging Asymetric Warfare against the Iraqis with carte blanche from the commander US forces.

To date, there is very little proof of that, but sooner or later, somebody will spill the beans.

Again, if that were the case, it would be a different term than Asymmetric warfare. It's not the bigger force that conducts it. It has nothing to do with being sneaky, plausible deniability, or such things. There are other words to describe those things.

BlueRaja, I'm glad you brought that up.

I slipped up and got carried away with my post and what I was trying to get across.

As I said, this concept of asymetric warfare is very new to me. The research I came across led me to believe that smaller forces could and often did, wage asymetric warfare against their bigger opponent.

Some of the private security personnel are making very big bucks by taking on the very people they are supposed to be helping.

Others however, are in it purely to earn a crust doing all the convoy escorts and providing close protection for Iraqi personalities and contractors.

The former are waging a form of restricted asymetric warefare, in that they are going after 'known' personalities much like the oft screamed about SOG 'Phoenix' programmes in Viet Nam.

Special Operations Forces, paramilitary, etc... may operate in small size elements, but they are still part of the big force, which is why what they do isn't considered Asymmetric Warfare. They do counterinsurgency operations(or counter- asymmetric warfare operations if you like). Operations like the Phoenix program in Vietnam, etc... were part of an overall strategy in dealing with insurgencies, as you can't always confront an unconventional foe with conventional tactics because you'll be at a disadvantage. It's never the larger force or element thereof that conducts asymmetric warfare. They have to deal with it through various means though.

An example would be-

Special Forces/SEALs/etc.. conduct various UW/DA/SR/CT type missions unilaterally or with HN forces(in this case the new Iraqi special forces, etc..) to counter insurgents.

Civil Affairs and PSYOP units support this overall objective(along with support of conventional forces), by "winning the hearts and minds" of the locals, making it more difficult for insurgents to blend in, or have the locals on their side.

I found this to be a good read on Asymetric Warfare:

Asymetric Warfare: A Primer

That's a great article on the subject, and illustrates what the term means very well.

this is very good info on this type of warfare.