Defining asymmetric warfare

Defining Asymmetric Warfare
David L. Buffaloe
No. 58 SEPTEMBER 2006
THE
LAND
WARFARE
PAPERS
A National Security Affairs Paper
Published on Occasion by
THE INSTITUTE OF
LAND WARFARE
ASSOCIATION OF THE
UNITED STATES ARMY
Arlington, Virginia

by
David L. Buffaloe
The Institute of Land Warfare
ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY

AN AUSA INSTITUTE OF LAND WARFARE PAPER
The purpose of the Institute of Land Warfare is to extend the educational work of AUSA by sponsoring
scholarly publications, to include books, monographs and essays on key defense issues, as well as
workshops and symposia. A work selected for publication as a Land Warfare Paper represents research
by the author which, in the opinion of the editorial board, will contribute to a better understanding of a
particular defense or national security issue. Publication as an Institute of Land Warfare Paper does not
indicate that the Association of the United States Army agrees with everything in the paper, but does
suggest that the Association believes the paper will stimulate the thinking of AUSA members and others
concerned about important defense issues.
LAND WARFARE PAPER NO. 58, SEPTEMBER 2006
by David L. Buffaloe
ii
This paper represents the opinions of the author and should not be taken to represent the views
of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, the United States government, the
Institute of Land Warfare, or the Association of the United States Army or its members.
© Copyright 2006 by
The Association of the United States Army
All rights reserved.
Inquiries regarding this and future Land Warfare Papers should be directed to: Director, ILW
Programs, AUSA’s Institute of Land Warfare, e-mail sdaugherty@ausa.org or telephone: (direct
dial)703-907-2627or(tollfree)1-800-336-4570,ext.226.
David Buffaloe, an Infantry major in the U.S. Army, recently completed his Master of Policy
Management degree at Georgetown University as part of the Army’s Office of the Secretary of
Defense Internship Program and now serves as the Congressional Liaison for the Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Organization. He enlisted in the National Guard as a field artillery forward
observer in 1988 and in the Regular Army in 1990 during the Operation Desert Shield force buildup.
After Operation Desert Storm, he won a competitive Army nomination to attend the U.S. Military
Academy, where he graduated in 1996 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Nuclear Engineering
Management. His first assignment was as a mechanized infantry lieutenant with the 1st Infantry
Division in Germany, where he participated in United Nations peacekeeping operations in the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. As a junior captain, he served as an instructor in the Mountain
Phase of the U.S. Army Ranger School. He deployed to Afghanistan in December 2002 as the
battalion plans officer and assistant operations officer for the 3d Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry
Regiment, 82d Airborne Division. He took command of Bravo Company, 3-504PIR, and Firebase
Shkin in the Bermel Province in May 2003 after his predecessor was badly wounded in a firefight
with al Qaeda forces. He commanded the task force at Firebase Shkin through five separate small-
arms enemy engagements with al Qaeda and hostile Taliban forces and was one of the first con-
ventional infantry officers to conduct counterinsurgency missions formerly reserved for special
operations forces. He later commanded B/3-504 in Balad, Iraq, during Operation Iraqi Freedom-
Phase II and served as the brigade plans officer prior to the 1st Brigade, 82d Airborne Division’s
second deployment to Afghanistan. In addition to his studies at Georgetown, then-Captain Buffaloe
served as a part-time Military Fellow for the U.S. Senate Committee for Veterans Affairs. He is
currently pursuing both his PhD in Public Policy from George Mason University and his Post-
Graduate Intelligence Program Certificate at the Joint Military Intelligence College operated by the
Defense Intelligence Agency.

Contents
i i i
Foreword ......................................................................................................................v
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
Asymmetry in Government Documents ........................................................................ 3
Asymmetry in History ................................................................................................... 7
Asymmetric Warfare in Scholarly Writing..................................................................... 9
Past Attempts to Define Asymmetric Warfare ............................................................ 12
Thoughts and Discussion on Asymmetry .................................................................... 13
Recommended Definition of Asymmetric Warfare...................................................... 17
Policy Recommendations. .......................................................................................... 27
Endnotes..................................................................................................................... 31

Foreword
v
GORDON R. SULLIVAN
General, United States Army Retired
President, AUSA
September 2006
Warfare today has taken on a new form and grown to new levels. The type of warfare
is not new, and few of the tactics are new. What is new is that this type of war has recently
reached a global level—and the United States and its allies have found themselves ill
prepared. Many strategists and theorists have attempted to grasp the concept of the war
we are facing today, yet none have adequately given it definition and understanding.
This paper surveys some of the history and literature of asymmetric warfare, citing
and critiquing some of the best attempts to define the term. The author then adds his own
discussion of the term, its concepts and its implications, and proposes his own definition
in an attempt to resurrect the term before it becomes completely obsolete.
America’s sole-superpower status forces us to continually engage in asymmetric war-
fare since no force can win a traditional war against us. Even traditional wars today—
such as the first phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom—and in the future will have many
asymmetric elements and implications, especially after the traditional war has been won.

1
Introduction
The 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States homeland1
captured the
attention of the world and ushered in a new phase of warfare. Not that terrorism was new—
it has been around since the dawn of time—but just as World War I and World War II
elevatedwarfareitselftoaworldwidelevel,9/11broughtaglobaldimensiontoterrorism.The
difference today is that the enemy takes on many faces and methods: terrorism, insurgency,
warofinformationandideas,warofdisruptivethreats,attacksusingbioweaponsthroughthe
mailorcyber-attacksontheInternet,warwagedbynon-stateactorsagainstthesoleremaining
superpower.Thefaceandmethodnotusedbythecurrentenemyiswhatisknownas“traditional
warfare”—warfare conducted by the legitimate military forces of nation-states, wherein the
objectiveiseitherterrain-orenemy-focused.The9/11attacksdidnotsignifyanendtotraditional
warfare.Onthecontrary,in2003theUnitedStatesfoughtatraditionalwaragainsttheforces
of Iraq’s Ba’ath Party government and won a regime change. But if warfare as the United
States and its allies understand it is limited to military conflicts between nation-states, then
what do we call the bloodshed and conflict we have seen and are currently experiencing
throughouttheworld?
In the second half of the 20th century, the two great powers of the world waged what is
known as the Cold War. Few strategists or theorists understood the concept or paradigm of a
Cold War back in the 1940s. Yet the United States, its government, its bureaucracy and its
military evolved to fight the Cold War. Nuclear technologies grew; Russia experts became
prevalentinU.S.universities;studentsofSovietstrategyexaminedcommunisttheorytobetter
understandtheenemy;clandestineintelligenceorganizationsaswellashigh-techintelligence
platforms came into existence and became focused on the enemy of the United States.
NowthattheSovietUnionisdissolved,nowthattheUnitedStatesistheonlysuperpower
intheworld,nowthatanenemyoftheUnitedStateshaslaunchedanattackontheAmerican
homeland, this nation must once again evolve to face a new enemy. So what type of war is
this? The President addressed this topic very eloquently to a West Point graduating class:
Thisisanothertypeofwar,newinitsintensity,ancientinitsorigin—warbyguerrillas,
subversives,insurgents,assassins,warbyambushinsteadofbycombat;byinfiltration,
insteadofaggression,seekingvictorybyerodingandexhaustingtheenemyinsteadof
engaginghim....Itpreysoneconomicunrestandethnicconflicts.Itrequiresinthose
situationswherewemustcounterit,andthesearethekindsofchallengesthatwillbe
before us in the next decade if freedom is to be saved, a whole new kind of strategy,
a wholly different kind of force, and therefore a new and wholly different kind of
militarytraining.2

2
The statement seems to have hit the mark, but the speaker was President John F.
Kennedy and he was addressing the West Point Class of 1962. The Commander-in-Chief
of U.S. Armed Forces and the head of the U.S. bureaucracy called for evolution—forty
years ago—to confront the type of war the United States is fighting today, yet most U.S.
bureaucracies (including the Department of Defense) are still ill-equipped to face today’s
opponent in the early part of the 21st century.
Many have tried to describe this new type of warfare, and many catchphrases and
buzzwords have come and gone: low-intensity conflict, military operations other than war,
asymmetric warfare, fourth-generation warfare, irregular warfare. To understand this type
of warfare, one must first define “warfare” in general. Merriam-Webster defines warfare
as military operations between enemies, an activity undertaken by a political unit (as a
nation) to weaken or destroy another (e.g., economic warfare) or a struggle between
competing enemies.3
Traditional warfare has taken the form of violent military action
among nation-states. By its very nature, warfare is a struggle at the strategic level. Battles
are fought at the tactical level and campaigns at the operational level, but warfare is
waged at the strategic level. The great Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz understood
that warfare is an extension of “politics4
through other means.”5
“Asymmetricwarfare”isatermthatwaxedintherealmofU.S.governmentdocuments
and academic writing in the late 1990s but waned in the year 2003, and it is now almost
shunned. During its heyday, to scholars and government officials it meant everything from
the 9/11 terrorist strikes to roadside bombs to supercomputer viruses to nuclear prolifera-
tion. Arguably, it meant so many different things that it became a useless, ambiguous term.
Understanding the concept of asymmetric warfare has always been challenging. During
the Cold War, the two world superpowers participated in various arms races—each side
always in fear of a gap in their capabilities when compared to the other. Peace was secured
through mutually assured destruction (MAD). This bipolar order of the world’s military
forces relied mainly on concepts of symmetry. Even if a perfect symmetry of forces could
not be achieved, a balancing of qualitative advantage of the West versus quantitative
numbers of forces in the East led to an arguable symmetry.6
Also during this time, much
trust was placed in documents such as the Geneva Conventions7
—whereby the great
powers agreed to certain rules of war and thus dictated the management of violence.
Building on the grand-scale conventional war fought during World War II, great-power
warfare as understood during this time was a detailed, measured, ordered event, getting
messy only on the periphery in places such as Afghanistan for the Soviets and Vietnam for
the Americans.
The 9/11 terrorist attacks, of course, changed many concepts. Taking place roughly a
decade after the breakup of the Soviet Union and the end of the bipolar order, 9/11
showed the West that their new enemy plays by no rules, respects no national bound-
aries and, although he wields little or no advanced technology or firepower, can wreak

3
more destruction upon American lives on U.S. soil in an hour than occurred in the nearly
half-century of the Cold War. The attacks also demonstrated that a military could no
longer guarantee its ability to serve as a buffer between the enemy and its own government
or people. This shock to the Western psyche spurred much of the discussion that was
alreadytranspiringontheconceptofasymmetricwarfare—changingperceptionsofstrategy,
tactics, security and threat forever.
However, the concept of asymmetric warfare has been around for centuries. Following
the teachings of Sun Tzu, all warfare is asymmetric because one exploits an enemy’s
strengths while attacking his weaknesses. The Greeks used the Phalanx to defeat a mounted
enemy. Hannibal used a feint in the middle of his forces with a double-envelopment to
achieve victory over the Romans. Every time a new tactic or invention changed the fortunes
and power of one army or empire over another, an imbalance or asymmetry occurred—
the weighting to one side created the conditions for victory.
Giventhestrictdefinitionofsymmetry,ifanywarwereperfectlysymmetricallyweighted,
then stalemate would be the norm and victory would be based solely upon luck. This
truism, coupled with the ambiguous nature of the term “asymmetric warfare” as it was
debated after the end of the Cold War, is the primary reason for the term’s waning and its
current taboo status. However, while all warfare is asymmetric, not every battle in history
lends itself to today’s concept—ambiguous though it may be—of asymmetric warfare.
When the term “asymmetric warfare” was used, it seemed to mean everything from
catastrophic terrorist attacks to insurgents’ roadside bombs, to proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction (WMD), to advanced computer viruses. Understandably, when a
term means so many different things to so many people, it easily loses its usefulness.
Many scholars have attempted to define the term and its meaning. The U.S. Army Strategic
Studies Institute commissioned a three-year-long effort to grapple with the term and its
implications. Yet, due to a lack of concrete understanding, the term became meaningless.
Asymmetry in Government Documents
The first official mention of the concept of asymmetry to appear in official U.S.
government documents occurred in 1995 in Joint Publication 1, Joint Warfare of the
United States of America. However, according to Dr. Stephen Metz and Dr. Douglas
Johnson,
The concept . . . was used in a very simplistic and limited sense. The doctrine
defined asymmetric engagements as those between dissimilar forces, specifically
air versus land, air versus sea, and so forth. This very narrow concept of asymmetry
hadlimitedutility.8
It focused the concept of asymmetric engagements so narrowly that it continued to limit
themtomilitary-on-militaryfighting.

4
From this initial document, the term made its way into the 1997 Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR), which elaborated on the concept of asymmetry and used the realist doctrine
of international relations9
to anticipate unconventional attacks by potential enemies:
U.S. dominance in the conventional military arena may encourage adversaries to
use . . . asymmetric means to attack our forces and interests overseas and
Americans at home.10
This statement illustrated that, given the unipolar nature of the world, a “rational” enemy
of the United States would be expected to find new and unique ways to strike.
After these initial official mentions of asymmetric warfare, the military began more in
earnest to attempt to understand this seemingly new concept in military affairs. The most
important single study—The Joint Strategic Review: Asymmetric Approaches to
Warfare, undertaken in 1999—provided both a conceptual framework of asymmetric
threats and a number of recommendations.11
It also was the first official attempt to define
asymmetry as it applied to the military:
Asymmetric approaches are attempts to circumvent or undermine U.S. strengths
while exploiting U.S. weaknesses using methods that differ significantly from the
United States’ expected method of operations.12
The authors of The Joint Strategic Review, recognizing that they had a limited grasp
of the concept, ended with a number of recommendations for follow-on study; most—if
not all—of them were largely ignored.13
The follow-on document was Joint Vision 2020. Published in 2000, it labeled such
asymmetric approaches as long-range ballistic missiles “perhaps the most serious danger
the United States faces in the immediate future.”14
Yet critics note that this document fell
short in its follow-through recommendations on how to handle this serious new threat.15
AsymmetricwarfareisstilldiscussedwithinsomeofficialDepartmentofDefense(DoD)
documents, but it currently takes primacy amongst DoD personnel working on Defense
Transformation:
We are operating in a less predictable threat environment than we faced before
1990, with many more axes of approach to defend against, both at home and
abroad. Regional powers are developing capabilities to threaten stability in areas
critical to U.S. interests. Both state and non-state adversaries are attempting to
compensate for U.S. military superiority by developing asymmetric capabilities.
And the proliferation of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN)
capabilities raises the specter of such weapons falling into terrorists’ hands. Non-
state actors using the international sea lanes and airways of global commerce have
also greatly diminished the protection that the U.S. was afforded by geographical
distance in the past.16

5
This document also quotes the emphasis placed on asymmetric concepts by former
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard B. Myers:
We are fighting a war unlike any we have fought before—it demands new ways of
thinking about military force, new processes to improve strategic agility, and new
technologies to take the fight to the enemy.17
The most recent official document espousing asymmetric concepts is the 2006 Quad-
rennial Defense Review Report, published on 6 February. The term “asymmetric” appears
14 times in the 2006 QDR. It addresses asymmetric operations, asymmetric threats,
asymmetric challenges, asymmetric military capabilities, asymmetric tactics, asymmetric
approaches and, in one instance, actually uses the term “asymmetric warfare,” albeit
parenthetically: “Irregular (Asymmetric) Warfare.”18
The 2006 QDR demonstrates that the strategic thinkers within the Pentagon grasp the
fact that the current war illustrates how the nature of warfare itself has changed:
ThiswarrequirestheU.S.militarytoadoptunconventionalandindirectapproaches.
Currently, Iraq and Afghanistan are crucial battlegrounds, but the struggle extends
far beyond their borders. With its allies and partners, the United States must be
prepared to wage this war in many locations simultaneously and for some years to
come. As the Department of Defense works to defeat these enemies, it must also
remain vigilant in an era of surprise and uncertainty and prepare to prevent, deter
or defeat a wider range of asymmetric threats. . . .
This QDR sought to provide a broader range of military options for the
President and new capabilities needed by Combatant Commanders to confront
asymmetric threats. The principles of transparency, constructive competition
to encourage innovation, agility and adaptability, collaboration and partnership
should guide the formulation of new strategic processes and organizational
structures.19
The QDR shows a graphic illustration (shown on the following page) that demonstrates
the various asymmetric challenges faced by the United States in today’s unipolar envi-
ronment, along with the transformation in force planning and force allocation necessary to
address those asymmetric threats. Note that Traditional Challenges (i.e., non-asymmetric)
make up only one quarter of the challenges, yet make up the vast majority of today’s
capability portfolio (prior to transformation).
The other, asymmetric challenges—Irregular Challenges, Catastrophic Challenges and
Disruptive Challenges—make up the other three quartiles and represent the future pre-
scription for capabilities DoD wishes to possess. This diagram seems to underscore the
changing nature of warfare20
in the current asymmetric environment, and it echoes DoD’s
commitment to transforming to address this threat.

6
Although the concept of asymmetry is prevalent in Defense Transformation and the
current QDR, the term “asymmetric warfare” and its relevant concepts are largely or
completely absent from the following documents:
• National Security Strategy, 200221
• National Security Strategy, 200622
• National Defense Strategy, 200523
• National Military Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, 200624
• National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, 200525

7
This absence illustrates why it is crucial to provide a workable definition for asymmetric
warfare—because this is the level at which an understanding of asymmetric warfare is
most needed.
Asymmetry in History
The concept of asymmetric warfare has existed since the dawn of time. One need not
go into every example of a war fought with a new tactic, new weapon or new organizational
style, or where one side used terrain or some other tangible substance to its advantage.
As we examine the concept of asymmetry in warfare, however, a few key authors and
situations stand out.
The first is Sun Tzu, the sage of warfare theory. In his monumental work The Art of
War, written more than 1,500 years ago, he states:
All warfare is based on deception. When confronted with an enemy one should
offer the enemy a bait to lure him; feign disorder and strike him. When he
concentrates, prepare against him; where he is strong, avoid him.26
This quote illustrates that a good strategist or tactician should always look for asym-
metryandexploitit.However,itappliestoallwarfare,includingtraditionalandconventional
warfare,soitdoesverylittlefortheargumentthatasymmetricwarfareissomehowdifferent.
Sun Tzu’s concept of the asymmetric nature of all warfare was echoed in the mid-20th
century by B. H. Liddell Hart, a staunch advocate of the “indirect approach.” He taught,
“The wisest strategy avoids the enemy’s strength and probes for weakness.”27
After the Napoleonic Wars, the German strategist Carl von Clausewitz grasped the
fact that warfare must not be simply intertwined with politics; rather, it must be subservient
to politics and waged only to achieve political goals:
We see, therefore, that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political
instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means.
War in general, and the commander in any specific instance, is entitled to require
that the trend and designs of policy shall not be inconsistent with these means.
That, of course is no small demand, but however much it will affect political aims
in a given case, it will never do more than modify them. The political object is the
goal, war is the means of reaching it, and means can never be considered in isolation
from their purpose.28
Like those of Sun Tzu and Liddell Hart, Clausewitz’s principles apply equally to
conventional/traditional/symmetric warfare. But this understanding that warfare is an
extension of politics rather than a raw matching up of firepower is key to understanding
the nature of asymmetric warfare.
In the late 19th century another German, Otto Von Bismarck, gave the first hint that
nontraditional asymmetric concepts can help to balance conventional military weaknesses:

8
“We live in a wondrous time in which the strong is weak because of his moral scruples and
the weak grows strong because of his audacity.”29
This statement illustrates a cultural
asymmetry, bringing a whole new concept to asymmetry in warfare. In it, Bismarck
illustrates that one can balance against a stronger military force if one is willing to forgo
the boundary of moral and cultural acceptability.
T. E. Lawrence, popularly known as “Lawrence of Arabia,” was one of the first military
thinkers to understand and write about the concept of unconventional/asymmetric warfare.
In Seven Pillars of Wisdom, he points out that a strict military advantage might not be the
surest route to victory:
Do not try to do too much with your own hands. . . . Better the Arabs do it
tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not
win it for them.30
Lawrence shows that when fighting in an asymmetric environment, long-term objectives
come into play; intangible progress is achieved by the manner in which the war is fought.
This intangible progress outweighs the traditional military progress of the campaign. He
teaches:
Actually, also, under the very odd conditions of Arabia, your practical work will
not be as good as, perhaps, you think it is. It may take them longer and it may not
be as good as you think, but if it is theirs, it will be better.31
A monumental work on the concept of asymmetric warfare was published in 1964 by
a French officer with experience in revolutionary warfare in places such as Algeria and
Greece. David Galula’s Counterinsurgency Warfare, written prior to the United States’
main involvement in Vietnam, reads like a field manual for counterinsurgency in places like
today’sIraq.32
He recognized that the insurgent and the counterinsurgent, although fighting
thesamewarintimeandspace,arefightingverydifferentwarsintermsoftactics,objectives
andideals.OneofGalula’skeyobservationsaddressestheasymmetrybetweentheinsurgent
and the counterinsurgent:
There is an asymmetry between the opposite camps of a revolutionary war. This
phenomenon results from the very nature of the war, from the disproportion of
strength between the opponents at the outset, and from the difference in essence
between their assets and their liabilities. . . .
The insurgent has a formidable asset—the ideological power of a cause on which
to base his action. The counterinsurgent has a heavy liability—he is responsible
for maintaining order throughout the country. The insurgent’s strategy will naturally
aim at converting his intangible assets into concrete ones, the counterinsurgent’s
strategy at preventing his intangible liability from dissipating his concrete assets.
. . .The peculiarities that mark the revolutionary war as so different from the
conventional one derive from this initial asymmetry.33

9
Although Galula’s book focuses on revolutionary war and counterinsurgency, most of its
teachings apply to the current concept of asymmetric warfare.
Finally, in 1999 two colonels—Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, from the People’s
Republic of China—wrote and published a book entitled Unrestricted Warfare.34
This
work, aside from causing mass panic in the U.S. defense and intelligence community,
brought many previously unconsidered concepts into the realm of warfare and altered
thinking to perceive every act of national power as an act of war. It also suggested other
catastrophic and disruptive threats as the only means to wage war against a country that
is vastly superior in traditional and conventional military might:
While we are seeing a relative reduction in military violence, at the same time we
definitely are seeing an increase in political, economic, and technological
violence. However, regardless of the form the violence takes, war is war, and
a change in the external appearance does not keep any war from abiding by
the principles of war.35
This manuscript, published prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, lent more to U.S.
understanding of asymmetric warfare than any study published by a Western author.
The concepts of Unrestricted Warfare have contributed to some excellent work
and study by Bruce Berkowitz in The New Face of War36
and Martin Van Creveld in
The Transformation of War.37
Asymmetric Warfare in Scholarly Writing
After the Chinese publication of Unrestricted Warfare, in the year 2000 and for the
next three years, the U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) commissioned a study to
examine the concept of asymmetry:
Following the May 2000 Army-Marine Warfighter Talks, the Army resolved to
develop an Army-Marine Corps view of a strategy for combating asymmetric
threats. The U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute, in turn, set about defining
asymmetry within the context of military doctrine, assessing the implications of
asymmetric military capabilities, and suggesting strategic concepts for countering
asymmetric threats.38
SSI director Dr. Douglas Lovelace best described the Army’s intellectual emphasis
on asymmetry in the introductions to many of the SSI products:
Since the mid-1990s, the concept of strategic asymmetry has been receiving more
serious attention from the U.S. Department of Defense. The September 11,2001,
attack on America, in which fully-loaded airplanes used as a form of stealth bomb
with aerial fuel explosives hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, marked
the beginning of an actual asymmetric war. Its initial dimensions shocked and
engaged the Nation.39

10
Some of the focus of the SSI studies built on the notion of the Realist Doctrine of
International Relations—that a “rational” enemy of the United States would seek means
to strike at America whereby they could avoid the tremendous U.S. military advantage.
This notion was espoused by Dr. Max Manwaring in Internal Wars in September 2001:
Ironically, strategies being developed to protect or further the interests of a number
of new players on the international scene are inspired by the dual idea of evading
and frustrating superior conventional military force within the global chaos. The
better a power such as the United States becomes at the operational level of
conventional war, the more a potential opponent turns to asymmetric solutions.40
In SSI’s Asymmetry and U.S. Military Strategy, Metz and Johnson took the most
thorough and comprehensive look at the concept of asymmetric warfare. They critiqued
the most recent and accepted definition: that given in the Joint Strategic Review of 1999.
Metz and Johnson’s critiques as well as their own definition are further discussed in the
next section, “Past Attempts to Define Asymmetric Warfare.”
Melissa Applegate, a former military intelligence officer and current Senior Warnings
Analyst for the National Intelligence Council (NIC), offered a keen understanding of
asymmetric warfare as well as a strong critique of U.S. military leaders’ tendency to pay
asymmetric warfare superficial homage but fail to follow through with substantial policy.
She highlights the primacy of asymmetric threat in her introduction to Preparing for
Asymmetry—published, ironically, ten days prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks:
Asymmetric approaches can no longer be considered secondary or peripheral to
conventional threats; U.S. forces must master the asymmetric domain with the
same intellectual energy devoted to conventional warfare—because asymmetry is
not just a threat.41
In an interview, Applegate stated that although the United States “pays her to be
paranoid” as an analyst for the NIC, she agrees with DoD that
. . . there is a much lower expectation of traditional threats out there and/or political
scenarios that lend themselves to resolution by conventional warfare. At the same
time,IbelievethattheconflictstheU.S.islikelytofinditselfinwillall,undoubtedly,
have asymmetric characteristics as much because of who we are and what we do
as who our enemies are and what they do.42
InFebruary2002,RobertSteele,aretiredMarineCorpsinfantryandintelligence officer,
published a work that called for policy action in the face of the evolving asymmetric war:
Both the Cold War threat paradigm and the Cold War intelligence paradigm are
dead. A new integrative paradigm for achieving asymmetric advantage in the face
of nontraditional threats is needed in the face of both nontraditional threats and
nontraditional sources and methods. This can be done by devising and exploiting
new intelligence sources and methods.43

11
Although his work focused primarily on the U.S. intelligence apparatus, Steele’s call for a
policy shift in the face of the asymmetric threat is applicable to many other departments
and agencies, not the least of them DoD itself.
In the summer of 2003, however, a military icon weighed in on the debate of whether
or not asymmetric warfare was a great revolution in military affairs. Retired General
Montgomery Meigs44
offered the U.S. Army War College a completely different viewpoint
on asymmetric warfare. He took a historical survey and contended that al Qaeda was
applying similar tactics that had been used for centuries whenever a militarily weak force
struggled against a strong force.
Asymmetry means the absence of a common basis of comparison in respect to a
quality, or in operational terms, a capability. . . .
Actually, al Qaeda’s overall strategy is not new. In the 11th and 12th centuries the
Assassins, a militarily weak fundamentalist and extremist sect, used pinpoint killing
to bring more powerful ruling groups to heel. Indoctrinating their young followers
into an extreme and enthusiastic cult of Shiite Islam, they sent individuals and
small teams out to infiltrate the inner circles of targeted leaders. . . . Today, only
the mechanism of attack has changed.45
The final “nail in the coffin” of asymmetric warfare as a revolutionary term in military
strategy came from one of the last publications of the SSI undertaking. In Rethinking
Asymmetric Threats, Dr. Stephen Blank made the final compelling critique that the term
had become too many things to too many different people and that its amorphous nature
detracted from its utility.
For the last several years, the U.S. strategic community has used the terms
“asymmetric” and “asymmetry” to characterize everything from the threats we
face to the wars we fight. In doing so, we have twisted these concepts beyond
utility, particularly as they relate to the threats we face. As one writer cited here
observed, we have reached the point where the German offensives of 1918 are
considered asymmetric attacks. Clearly this use of the term asymmetric or of the
concept of asymmetry does not help us assess correctly the threats we face. Indeed,
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has voiced his discomfort with the term
asymmetry, indicating his unease with its use.46
Blank’s statements echoed the feeling of most of the strategic and academic community
that the term “asymmetric warfare,” having never received an adequate, useful definition,
had dwindled into uselessness. The term du jour in its heyday, it now existed only within
parts of the military establishment, where buzz words, once established, tend to linger on.
The terms “low-intensity conflict” (LIC) and “military operations other than war”
(MOOTW) are also now seldom used, yet there still exists an Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict who oversees special

12
operations policy, as well as a Master of Defense Analysis degree program at the Naval
Postgraduate School at Monterey, California, with a focus on special operations and
low-intensity conflict. Like LIC, the term “asymmetric warfare” still has its legacy, in a
new Army Special Mission Unit called the Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG), which
activated on 8March 2006. As described by Lieutenant General James J. Lovelace and
Brigadier General Joseph L. Votel,
The AWG will become a lead organization in providing the conventional force
with global perspective and expertise in full spectrum training, planning and
execution of countermeasures to asymmetric warfare.47
Ironically, the AWG, although an awesome step forward in retooling the U.S. Army to
fight asymmetric warfare, focuses on specific enemy tactics and maintains its focus on the
tactical rather than the strategic level.
Past Attempts to Define Asymmetric Warfare
The first official U.S. attempt to define any notion of asymmetry appeared in the 1999
Joint Strategic Review, which defined “asymmetric approaches”:
Asymmetric approaches are attempts to circumvent or undermine U.S. strengths
while exploiting U.S. weaknesses using methods that differ significantly from the
United States’ expected method of operations. [Asymmetric approaches] generally
seek a major psychological impact, such as shock or confusion that affects an
opponent’s initiative, freedom of action, or will. Asymmetric methods require an
appreciationofanopponent’svulnerabilities.Asymmetricapproachesoftenemploy
innovative, nontraditional tactics, weapons, or technologies, and can be applied
at all levels of warfare—strategic, operational, and tactical—and across the
spectrum of military operations.48
Metz and Johnson critiqued the Joint Strategic Review definition as follows:
This definition expanded official thinking but has two shortcomings: it remains
specific to the current strategic environment and American security situation; and
it deals primarily with what might be called “negative” asymmetry—what an
opponent might do to the United States—rather than giving equal weight to how
the U.S. military might use asymmetry against its opponents.49
Their critique is valid on its second point—that when considering asymmetric warfare,
equal weight should be given to the offensive asymmetric capabilities of the stronger power.
However, their first point—that asymmetry as defined by Joint Strategic Review 1999
lacks a universal application because the definition focused on the United States—is too
harsh in its criticism. Asymmetric warfare, like an insurgency on a grand strategic level, is
a conflict that is waged very differently by the strong and the weak sides. It is not illogical
for a U.S. government document to be U.S.-focused in defining aspects of warfare. It is

13
also adequate to substitute “the asymmetrically stronger opponent” for “the U.S.” to achieve
universal applicability—due to the unipolar nature of today’s world, the United States will
likely continue to hold the position of the “asymmetrically stronger opponent.”
Although Metz and Johnson offered somewhat sound critiques of others’ definitions
of asymmetric warfare, their own definition was somewhat ambiguous:
Intherealmofmilitaryaffairsandnationalsecurity,asymmetryisacting,organizing,
and thinking differently than opponents in order to maximize one’s own advantages,
exploit an opponent’s weaknesses, attain the initiative, or gain greater freedom of
action. It can be political-strategic, military-strategic, operational, or a combination
of these. It can entail different methods, technologies, values, organizations, time
perspectives, or some combination of these. It can be short-term or long-term. It
can be deliberate or by default. It can be discrete or pursued in conjunction with
symmetric approaches. It can have both psychological and physical dimensions.50
Thisdefinitionofasymmetry,harkingbacktoSunTzu’s“acting,organizing,andthinking
differently than opponents in order to maximize your advantage” with its many “can-
be’s,” “can-have’s” and “can-entail’s,” further complicated the concept. They then went
on to identify more can-be’s: positive or negative, short or long term, deliberate or by
default, low risk or high risk, discrete or integrated, material or psychological. It was
further complicated by its identification of levels of asymmetry and at least six different
forms of asymmetry.51
It is no wonder that, with this definition, most strategists were
willing to let go of the term, assuming that it can be everything or nothing.
ColonelRobertShaw,thefirstcommandingofficeroftheU.S.Army’snewAsymmetric
Warfare Group, defines asymmetric warfare as such:
Warfare in which the two or more belligerents are mismatched in their military
capabilities or accustomed methods of engagement such that the militarily
disadvantaged power must press its special advantages or . . . its enemy’s particular
weaknesses if they are to prevail.52
Shaw points out that the same definition could apply to any country, not just the
United States. His definition applies the basic concept of Sun Tzu to the truism of the
mismatchofforcesinanasymmetricconflict.However,itdoesnotaddressasymmetries
beyond the mismatch of forces, such as the cultural asymmetry or the asymmetry of
cost that exists on the strategic level.
Thoughts and Discussion on Asymmetry
The asymmetric nature of all warfare. The first and greatest critique of the concept of
asymmetry in warfare is the one posed by Sun Tzu and Liddell Hart: Is not all warfare
asymmetric? If all warfare is based on deception, if one looks for the indirect approach,
does one not always strive for asymmetry even in conventional warfare? The answer to

14
this simple question is yes, but the actual concept of asymmetric warfare brings much
more to the understanding of the current conflict.
Asymmetry of cost. One aspect of the current asymmetric war is the asymmetry of cost.
Galula noted in 1964 the asymmetry of cost between an insurgent and a counterinsurgent.
An insurgent blows up a bridge—a counterinsurgent now must guard all bridges. An
insurgent throws a grenade into a theater—a counterinsurgent must take very expensive
steps to ensure that the population feels safe.53
This concept is drastically illustrated today
in the tremendous cost to the United States to secure its airways after the relatively
inexpensive (for the attackers) 9/11 attacks.
Asymmetry of cost is further illustrated in the cost of waging warfare in general with a
non-state terrorist organization. When a nation-state wages war against a peer nation,
each member of the conflict has similar risks at stake: population, land and interests to
defend. When a non-state actor like a terrorist organization wages war against a nation-
state, the non-state actor has no population or land at risk and therefore bears a lower
cost in waging warfare.
Culturalasymmetry. Failure to understand an enemy’s culture—assuming that the enemy
thinks as you do and shares your values—will lend to a failure to achieve victory because
you are unable to identify his “center of gravity.” General Anthony Zinni, U.S. Marine
Corps (Retired) identified the center of gravity of America’s current enemy as “angry
young Muslim men.”54
Cultural asymmetry impacts the way the West communicates—or
fails to communicate—with this center of gravity.
Asymmetry and idiosyncrasy. In his Parameters article, Meigs recommended agreeing
upon a definition, but he also recommended that strategists not overlook the idiosyncrasies
of the enemy’s methods:
Idiosyncrasy has a different connotation—possessing a peculiar or eccentric
pattern. In a military sense, idiosyncrasy connotes an unorthodox approach or
means of applying a capability, one that does not follow the rules and is peculiar in
a sinister sense. . . .
In this new strategic environment we [should] agree on a set of definitions that will
provide our tools for analysis. In preempting the terrorist are we really dealing
with asymmetry, or is something else at work? Thinking of the threat as only
asymmetric misses the mark, especially if we have the concept wrong. The
combination of asymmetry and the terrorists’ ability continually to devise
idiosyncratic approaches presents our real challenge. Assessing the distinction
and interrelationship between these two factors provides us with the initial
understanding required to address the operational challenges.55
Ambiguous definitions. Major General John R. Landry, U.S. Army (Retired) has served
as the National Intelligence Officer for Military Issues for most of the post-Cold War era,

having been appointed to the National Intelligence Council in 1993. He is not a fan of the
term “asymmetric warfare,” but he has stated that he is willing to be convinced.56
Part of
his reservation about the term is that its lack of proper definition has resulted in considerable
cloudingofcrucialintellectualjudgment:“Terminologyisimportant.Arewefightingterrorism
or are we truly fighting a global-transnational insurgency?” He posits that terminology is
important because one fights an insurgency very differently than one fights terrorists.57
Multidimensionalwarfare.Shaw cited the multidimensional nature of asymmetric warfare:
Whereas traditional warfare is linear in nature, Asymmetric Warfare is multi-
dimensional and amorphous. One category blends into the other. One action affects
the other. The “threat grid” depicted in the [2006] QDR is somewhat inaccurate
because the lines between the various threats: catastrophic, disruptive, irregular,
and traditional, are not solid boundaries, but rather blurred guidelines [whereby]
one category bleeds over and overlaps the other.58
Dr. David Kilcullen, a retired Australian lieutenant colonel with experience in East
Timor who is currently serving as the State Department’s Senior Strategist for the
Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism and is also one of the authors of the 2006 QDR,
elaborated on this multidimensional aspect of warfare:
Multidimensional warfare lends itself to asymmetry. For example, in Iraq today,
there are four dimensions operating at once: 1) first and foremost, a devastated
country badly in need of rebuilding, 2) counterinsurgency, 3) counterterrorism
and 4) sectarian and communal conflict. The difficulty is that if you address one of
the four, you lose ground on the other three. For instance, you cannot rebuild the
nation because of all of the violence. So do you end the violence first? Well, no,
because if you do not reconstruct the country then you add to the insurgency. If
you give power to the Shia, then you feed the Sunni violence, etc.59
Kilcullen identified the following four aspects of asymmetry but did not limit the
dimensions to these alone: asymmetry of technology, asymmetry of method, asymmetry of
interestsandasymmetryofcultureandvalues.Asymmetryoftechnologyisthemostobvious
due to the United States’ vast advantage. Asymmetry of method was illustrated in the
9/11 terrorist attacks, when al Qaeda proved its ruthlessness and resolve. The U.S.
experience in Vietnam illustrated an asymmetry of interests, since the U.S. goals and the
goals of the Viet Cong were very much at odds.60
Irregular warfare. Even as the term “asymmetric warfare” approaches scholarly taboo,
“irregular warfare” seems to be coming more into vogue—and, like asymmetric warfare,
irregular warfare has not been strictly defined. One concise definition—“not regular
warfare”61
—was provided by Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl, U.S. Army (Ph.D., author
and Military Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense). However, once again, this
ambiguity demands some attention. Given the QDR force-planning grid, “irregular
15

challenges” are addressed by military forces attuned to “defeat terrorist networks.” This
diagram fails to identify the difference between terrorism and insurgency and fails to
recognize the force planning necessary to defeat each. As Landry pointed out, each must
be addressed by vastly different tactics.
It is accurate to place both terrorism and insurgency in the same category on the QDR
force-planning grid; calling the broader category “irregular warfare” is also not a problem.
But strategists, tacticians and force-planners should recognize the great difference between
terrorismandinsurgency.Whereasaterroristcanactaloneandwithoutsupport,aninsurgent
needs the support of the population to succeed. One can destroy a true terrorist by killing
him, without fear of alienating the populace at large. As long as an insurgent has a cause
that can be spread through the population, killing insurgents through harsh methods or
dramatic fire superiority can have the effect of persuading more insurgents to their cause.
When planning U.S. strategy, one must ask: Are the al Qaeda truly terrorists, or has their
idea spread and solidified to the point that if every member of al Qaeda were removed,
another organization would simply step into its place? When U.S. strategists can grasp
this nuance between insurgents and terrorists, they can plan a strategy focused first on
distancing the enemy from the people and destroying their idea in the minds of the
population; then the United States will have a much easier fight—with the full support of
the world’s population, and without allowing any insurgency to grow.
The common thread. Is there a common thread among all of the various threats that
asymmetry seems to represent: insurgency, cyber-terrorism, bioterrorism, improvised
explosive devices, 9/11, WMD proliferation? Yes, the thread is that it is the ideas of
Unrestricted Warfare applied to the ideas of On War. Each act is simply “politics through
other means” by a declared enemy of the United States or the West, through other than
traditional means.
Asymmetric vs. traditional warfare. If there is a commonality among the various aspects
of asymmetric warfare, then what distinguishes it from any other type of warfare? The
answer can be found in Galula’s Counterinsurgency Warfare. The United States and the
West would fight an asymmetric war on the global level, much as a counterinsurgent
would fight an insurgency within national borders—distancing the population from the
enemy, attacking the enemy’s idea (his primary asset) and without being too heavy-handed
in either actions or retribution, always striving to reinforce the local governments and
militaries.
Population-centricwarfare. Kilcullen also identified traditional warfare as either terrain-
centric (as in World War II, and also in the Falklands or in Kuwait during Operation
Desert Storm) or enemy-centric (as in Phase 1 of Operation Iraqi Freedom—OIF-1—
wherein the primary goal was to seek out the Republican Guard and the Ba’ath Party
wherever they might be).62
Asymmetric warfare is population-centric; the population is
the ultimate key to victory for both sides of the conflict.63
16

Unrelated aspects? The final question prior to presenting the definition is: How can one
bring so many different and seemingly unrelated aspects of conflict together under a single
umbrella term? The answer is found in the antithesis of asymmetric warfare: Traditional
warfare deals with many seemingly unrelated events. On the face of it, infantry jungle
warfare, tank battles in the desert, naval warfare on the high seas, supersonic air-to-air
dogfights and intercontinental ballistic missile exchanges have little in common with one
another, but they are all representative of traditional great-power warfare. Similarly, all of
the various aspects of asymmetric warfare intertwine to help clarify the type of war the
United States is currently fighting.
Recommended Definition of Asymmetric Warfare
Inconsiderationoftheaboveanalysis,Iproposethefollowingdefinitionof“asymmetric
warfare”:
Asymmetric warfare is population-centric nontraditional warfare waged
between a militarily superior power and one or more inferior powers which
encompasses all the following aspects: evaluating and defeating asymmetric
threat, conducting asymmetric operations, understanding cultural asymmetry
and evaluating asymmetric cost.
This definition encompasses every aspect of asymmetry that is important to today’s
strategist. It provides equal weight to enemy actions (asymmetric threat) and allied actions
(asymmetric operations). These, along with cultural asymmetry and asymmetric cost,
encompass all of the most import aspects of asymmetry that must be applied to today’s
grand strategy. This definition is universally applicable to all of nontraditional warfare and
specifically to the war the United States is currently fighting. (A graphic representation of
that concept appears on the following page.)
When planning grand strategy or conducting force planning, these are the aspects of
asymmetric warfare one must consider. These are the aspects that separate it from
traditional warfare. Traditional warfare is either enemy-centric or terrain-centric warfare
consisting of traditional threat and traditional operations, wherein each side bears similar
costs.
Volumes can be and have been written about each component and subcomponent of
asymmetric warfare. However, volumes have also been written about tank battles and
submarine warfare, yet a grand strategist need not be an expert on each of their nuances.
To fully understand the definition above requires discussion the four primary elements
of asymmetric warfare described therein.
Asymmetric Threat. The components comprising asymmetric threat are: terrorism,
insurgency, information operations, disruptive threats and unknown threats. Note that
each of these components of asymmetric threat can easily fit into the threat categories
outlined in the 2006 QDR.
17

Terrorism. Terrorism includes all of the known forms of terrorism that exist today: suicide
terrorism, catastrophic attacks such as the strikes on 9/11, political assassination, biological
strikes like anthrax mailings, and many others.
Terrorism is meant to produce a horrific effect. In the Information Age, terrorism is
much more effective because a terrorist’s message is disseminated and its impact is felt
instantly and worldwide. Threat and message mean more to a terrorist than the action
itself; success is measured by the disruptive and psychological effect of an action, not by
the body count. Terrorist networks can operate with a very decentralized command
structure. Terrorists do attempt to achieve political goals, as per Clausewitz’ definition of
warfare in general; however, the support of a population is not essential to a terrorist.
Insurgency. At its root, an insurgency is a revolutionary war. Asymmetries abound in an
insurgency. The key is that, unlike a terrorist, an insurgent is completely reliant upon the
population, and the population is the objective for both the insurgent and the
counterinsurgent.
18

Kilcullen mentioned that one key difference between the insurgency taking place in
Iraq and past examples of insurgency is that the Iraqi insurgency is decentralized. In
Vietnam, for instance, all of the direction of the insurgency came from Ho Chi Minh. In
Iraq, however, there are at least 17 insurgent organizations and four terrorist organizations
that the United States is aware of, many of them at odds with one another as well as with
the counterinsurgent forces.64
Also, Landry pointed out that many of al Qaeda’s actions
and strategies more closely resemble those of a global transnational insurgent than of a
terrorist. Much more like a revolutionary than a terrorist, Osama bin Laden conducts his
actions to attempt to gain the support of a populace.65
Information operations. Galula stated in Counterinsurgency Warfare that information
operations (IO) are key. An insurgent’s greatest asset is an idea; he wants to spread this
idea and convert it into more tangible assets like soldiers and support. Similarly, in today’s
asymmetric war, the United States is fighting a war of ideas wherein the Muslim population
is the objective. In this war, information operations are key. In the Information Age, a
terrorist network or a weak insurgent need not have extensive funding to have his message
heard; bin Laden can easily issue a fatwa by having one operative publish it on the Internet.
The enemy wages information warfare by issuing propaganda, creating lies and
developing conspiracies. The enemy, like the insurgents described by Galula, can bank
currency on mere promises, rather than upon action.66
They can also seek always to drive
a wedge between the target population and the West. This was clearly exemplified by the
violence that followed the publication of the Danish cartoon depicting the Prophet
Mohammed.
Disruptive threat. “Promoting disorder is a legitimate objective for the [asymmetric
enemy].”67
Between terrorism and disruptive threats lies much overlap. When conducting
a disruptive strike, an asymmetric enemy need not even commit an action; the mere threat
of action is enough to disrupt the American way of life. This holds true in the United
States, but even more so in parts of the world where suicide bombing is part of daily life.
The impact of a disruptive strike is measured in psychological rather than physical effect.
Disruptive threats weigh greatly in asymmetric cost, as will be discussed later.
A grand strategist combating disruptive threats must consider that until the average
American truly understands the nature of asymmetric warfare, great measures—at a great
cost—must be taken to make people feel safe. A strong case in point is the 9/11 terrorist
strikes: Billions of dollars were lost in impeded air travel shortly after 9/11, and billions
more have been spent to ensure that “9/11 could not happen again.” However, 9/11 could
not possibly have happened again—not even again on 9/11.The first strikes were possible
only because the terrorists broke their own paradigm. Until 9/11, every passenger, airline
employee and federal agent could be reasonably assured that when a terrorist hijacked an
airplane, he would force it to land in some neutral or friendly location, and then use the
hostages to barter for his demands; if the hostages remained calm and did not resist, they
19

would likely emerge alive. But the moment that paradigm was broken—when passengers
learned their hijacked airplane was to be used as a “stealth bomb”—the terrorist’s plot
was foiled. This happened on United Airlines Flight 93, when the passengers forced a
crash in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, to prevent the terrorists’ reaching their true target.
There has not been another hijacked airplane since, not because of the extensive safety
measures put in place at a tremendous cost and a huge inconvenience, but because the
terrorists would be foolish to attempt such a thing again. Now that the paradigm is broken,
the drill of “stay calm and don’t try to be a hero” would not work on any passenger. But
that knowledge is not enough to make an airline traveler feel safe. For now, the U.S.
government must continue spending millions of dollars per day to ensure that “9/11 couldn’t
happen again” rather than spending this money and intellectual energy to find and fix the
next U.S. weakness.68
Enemy vs. tools. In the equation of asymmetric threat, there is the vast and ambiguous
unknown term denoted by the symbol “∈.” An asymmetric enemy could use virtually any
means to achieve his goal. However, it is important to clearly delineate the difference
between a true asymmetric enemy and that enemy’s tools.
Many people view crime, organized crime, hate crime, disease, drug trade, protests,
natural disaster, peaceful civil disobedience or human trafficking as potential asymmetric
threats. These in and of themselves are not the enemy because they fail to meet the
Clausewitzian principle of politics through other means. Rather, they are events that are
profit-motivated, directed toward minorities rather than toward the government, part of
nature or part of the political life of a free democracy.
However, each of these could be used by an asymmetric enemy to achieve his goals.
In this case it becomes a tool and does fall under the realm of asymmetric threat. Criminal
elements can supply and assist enemies, protestors can further an enemy’s cause, natural
disasters can provide a disruption that an enemy can capitalize upon; however, none of
these is motivated by the ideology of the enemy. A criminal seeks profit and avoids arrest;
his ideology is moot. Criminals can be bribed to work against the enemy, or intimidated
into submission if their price is too high.
Each enemy tool must be addressed by a strategist, as long as that tool is not targeted
as the actual enemy. Targeting these forces as an enemy instead of as a tool can cause the
population—the true objective—to become more sympathetic to the enemy’s ideology.
Asymmetricoperations.Asymmetric operations in this formulation are those operations
that are planned and conducted by the stronger side of an asymmetric war. They can be
thought of as offensive operations. They consist primarily of putting an asymmetric twist
on the traditional spheres of national power, limited for the purposes of this paper to diplo-
macy, information, military and economic (DIME). In addition to placing an asymmetric
twist on DIME,one also must look to leverage asymmetric advantage wherever possible.
20

Asymmetric diplomacy. As Galula pointed out that politics has primacy in an
insurgency69
—and Clausewitz pointed out that all wartime objectives are political70
—
diplomacy has primacy in asymmetric war. This is sometimes easy to forget since most
asymmetric enemies are non-state actors. However, if counterinsurgency principles are
applied to asymmetric warfare on the global-transnational scale, the population is still the
objective. The State Department’s mission is diplomacy; thus far they have focused only
on nation-states and international organizations. They should be organized and equipped
to engage a target population through diplomatic efforts either directly or by working
through the legitimate governments of the nation states.
Asymmetric information operations. There are four very important concepts about
information warfare that anyone conducting an asymmetric war must understand. The first
concept is that information warfare in the Information Age is not waged just by very
specialized military units on the ground. Psychological operations (PSYOP) products are
targeted communications aimed at a specific group or demographic and delivered on a
schedule as part of a larger plan. In contrast, information operations are conducted every
time an official of the United States (or the West), whether elected, appointed or uniformed,
makes any public statement; regardless of the intended target, the message is immediately
disseminated worldwide. The second concept is that actions, or lack thereof, speak much
louder than words. As Galula stated:
With no positive policy but with good propaganda, the [asymmetric enemy]
may still win. . . . [We] can seldom cover bad or nonexistent policy with
propaganda.71
The third concept is that the IO message comes across much more convincingly when it is
delivered by a local leader rather than by a Western spokesman. Whenever possible, the
United States should engage friendly sheikhs, imams, elders and elected officials to
disseminate IO themes. The last great concept to take away is that, unlike traditional
warfare wherein any action by the friendly side is seen as progress, an “action” by the
U.S. side in an information war can just as easily impede progress or take giant leaps
backward if the consequences are not thoroughly and carefully considered.
The lead agency in information warfare should be the State Department. However,
coordination must occur at all levels, and good policy—supported by organization,
knowledge and leadership—is the most important aspect in winning.72
Asymmetricmilitaryoperations. Asymmetric military operations mainly comprise direct
action (antiterrorism), unconventional warfare (counterinsurgency), psychological opera-
tions, civil-military operations, foreign internal defense and special reconnaissance.
Ironically, until recently U.S. Army Special Operations Command trained for and special-
izedineachofthesetypesofoperations—leavingtherestoftheArmytofocusontraditional
missions. Today, however, given the nature of the asymmetric war the United States is
fighting, the rest of the military is quickly learning to perform of these operations.
21

Counterinsurgency has come to the forefront of military thinking due to the situation in
Iraq today. Galula’s book Counterinsurgency Warfare, now back in print, has become
required reading at the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center and elsewhere throughout the
military. The U.S. military is making huge strides in the realm of counterinsurgency; how-
ever, the State Department—among other federal departments—is only just beginning to
realize its own vastly important role in winning a counterinsurgent war. Once again, as
Clausewitz stated, warfare is simply politics through other means. All other means should
be explored.
Asymmetric economic operations. The most visual asymmetric economic operation is
development and reconstruction. Foreign aid, trade policy and foreign direct investment
(FDI) also play vital roles in waging asymmetric economic operations. In a war where the
population is the objective, that target population must be able to see and understand the
tangible benefit for supporting the side with the asymmetric advantage and to see and
understand a material disadvantage for supporting the asymmetric enemy. “Stick-and-
carrot” techniques are important, as is coordination at all levels. All aspects of economic
operations must be coordinated and nested with the diplomatic, information operations
and military campaigns. Note that military personnel are not the experts when it comes to
foreign aid, trade policy, FDI or development and reconstruction.
Leveraging asymmetric advantage. Finally, the side of an asymmetric war that wields
the asymmetric advantage must understand how to leverage that advantage against the
enemy. Asymmetric advantage comes primarily in the following forms: technology,
intelligence, communications, conventional military forces and economic resources.
Although much of asymmetry highlights the advantages possessed by the weaker side, the
United States must recognize and appreciate its own vast advantages and use them against
the enemy.
Cultural asymmetry. Cultural asymmetry is one of the hardest concepts to grasp, but it
is one of the most crucial in an asymmetric war. Since asymmetric warfare is population-
centric,understandingthepopulation—thecenterofgravity,asidentifiedbyZinni—cultural
asymmetry feeds into all other operations. Understanding of cultural asymmetry also helps
identify and prepare for asymmetric threats because analysts should have a better
understanding of the enemy’s capabilities and motives.
Cultural asymmetry is not new to American forces. During the development and
reconstructionphasefollowingWorldWarII,whentheallieswererebuildingJapan,General
Douglas MacArthur exhibited a keen grasp of cultural asymmetry when he allowed Japan
to keep its emperor rather than punishing him as a war criminal, even though the concept
of an emperor ran counter to American values. Broken down into component parts, cultural
asymmetry consists of: asymmetry of values, asymmetry of rules, asymmetry of norms,
understanding the target population and conducting culturally attuned information
operations.
22

Asymmetry of values. Bismarck’s statement that the “the strong is weak because of his
moral scruples and the weak grows strong because of his audacity” referred to cultural
asymmetry of values, norms and rules. The West believes that it values life too greatly to
employsuicideasapoliticalormilitarytactic.Suicideterroristsseethemselvesassacrificing
their lives to achieve legitimate military goals—and, in the context of the terrorist suicides
of Islamic extremists, to reap commensurate rewards in heaven. This is foreign to the
Western mindset; without condoning such actions, we must look through our cultural
barriers to try to understand why someone would commit such an act.
Understanding values is crucial in a population-centric asymmetric war. Simply put,
the enemy’s greatest asset is an idea—currently that the “imperialistic Western infidels”
are trying to corrupt their values, lives and holy land.73
The West values freedom. However,
“freedom” can easily be translated in a non-Western culture to “lawlessness” and
“anarchy”—neither of which is valued in any culture.
Asymmetryofnorms. The West has gone to great lengths to legitimize acts of warfare by
identifying combatants and noncombatants. However, if a non-Western culture vilifies an
entire group of people for committing economic and political as well as military atrocities,
then they can view the people working in the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001
as combatants, whereas the West justifiably identifies them as innocent noncombatants.
Once again, the West need not accept the enemy’s norms; strategists must simply attempt
to understand them so strategy can be focused accordingly.
Also, in the Muslim culture loyalty is placed above honesty when weighing one’s
honor. Many U.S. Soldiers and commanders complain when a member of the local
population lies to protect the insurgents/terrorists/cache, etc. Although Soldiers take this
as a strong affront, and their norms cause them to feel that this man has no honor or
integrity, they must understand that if someone appealed to his loyalty—whether to culture,
religion, nationality or tribe—whether or not he likes that person or supports his cause,
the man is honor-bound to lie for that person. The man’s honor is defined more greatly by
his loyalty than by his honesty.74
Asymmetryofrules.Asymmetric enemiesarebound byneitherthelawsoflandwarfarenor
the Geneva Conventions. They routinely direct violent action against civilians. They use
tacticsofterrorandhorrificimages.Manyterroristsandinsurgentsarealsowillingtosacrifice
theirownlivesfortheir causeinasuicide strike.Allofthesemustbe weighedwhenplanning
tofightanasymmetric enemy. Noatrocityisbeyondthisenemy’s capability.
Understanding target population. When waging a population-centric war, strategists
must identify the values and norms of the target population. These may be very different
from those of the enemy and, if so, must be exploited. If the target population’s values and
norms are very different from those of the West, then every effort must be made to
understand this and to be aware. Soldiers on the front lines have done an amazing job of
respectingtheMuslimculturebytheirtreatmentofwomen,bytheirlisteningtoandworking
23

with sheikhs and village elders; this now must occur at every level. When U.S. values of
“freedom of the press” conflict with the target population’s notion of a “travesty against
God,” strategists need to be aware and deal with it at a national, diplomatic level; otherwise
the enemy will exploit this clash of cultures. Also, when the United States shows the world
that it trusts its European allies but not its Middle Eastern allies to operate U.S. ports, the
enemy can exploit this with the target population.
Informationoperations. Cultural asymmetry is crucial in waging information warfare.
As previously stated, information warfare is waged whenever any Western spokes-
person makes a public statement and any time the West acts or fails to act in a given
situation. Often, Western leaders make statements for their own benefit and without
consideration of their impact on this war’s target population. Statements such as “I would
rather fight them over there than over here” tell an Iraqi who is deciding whether to
support the insurgents that the goal of the United States is to make Iraq (his home)
an unending battleground. Courses on communicating with the Muslim world can and
should be taught to any Western spokesperson.
Asymmetric cost. Galula quite eloquently explains that there is a tremendous cost to
asymmetry in counterinsurgency warfare; this is true in all types of asymmetric warfare:
Disorder . . . is cheap to create and very costly to prevent. . . . Because [we)]cannot
escape the responsibility of maintaining order, the ratio of expenses between [us]
and the [asymmetric enemy] are high. . . . Because of the disparity in cost and
effort, the [asymmetric enemy] can thus accept a protracted war; [we] should
not. . . . The [asymmetric enemy] is fluid because he has neither responsibility nor
concrete assets; [we are] rigid because [we have] both.75
Asymmetric cost encompasses assets at stake, cost of asymmetric defense, cost of
undertaking action, and the asymmetric costs and nature of information operations.
Assets at stake. As stated previously, a nation state that goes to war places many assets
at risk: population, land and interests. A non-state actor’s or an insurgent’s only asset is
his idea; he has no land or population. He may have interests, and he probably has a
target population. The goal of the players on both sides of an asymmetric war, as in a
counterinsurgency, is to win over the population to support their side—only then can the
enemy grow weak. If an asymmetric enemy has interests, then these interests should be
targeted as well. When fighting other than a nation-state, however, one must recognize the
assets at stake for each side of the asymmetric war.
Cost of defense. As Galula noted, “Disorder . . . is cheap to create and very costly to
prevent.”76
It is cheap for an insurgent to bomb a bridge, but expensive for a counter-
insurgent to guard all of the bridges. We have seen that it is cheap for al Qaeda to hijack
airplanes but expensive for the United States to maintain air security. It is cheap to mail
anthrax but expensive to screen the mail.
24

Cost of undertaking action. Also, as Galula states, to be effective, a counterinsurgent’s
forces must be ten or twenty times the size of the insurgent’s. This lends itself to the
asymmetric cost of the defense. An insurgent can afford to wait, and he chooses where to
strike. The drawn-out nature of a counterinsurgency makes it extremely costly. However,
as stated under Information Operations, failure to act in a given situation loses more of the
population to the insurgency.
This same principle can be true on the strategic level. Demonstrating to the world that
the United States and its allies are willing to help in the aftermath of a natural disaster such
as the December 2004 tsunami that struck Indonesia or the October 2005 earthquake in
Pakistan gained tremendous ground in this asymmetric war.
Informationoperations.Information operations holds a position under “Asymmetric Cost”
due to the costs associated with conducting information operations in an asymmetric war.
The enemy can base his entire IO campaign on rumor, propaganda and conspiracy theories.
The West can base theirs only on concrete actions—and they are judged very harshly
when they fail to act. It is hard for someone to grasp the concept that the United States
canplaceamanonthemoonbutcannotturnonavillage’selectricity.Duetothisasymmetry
of cost in the realm of information operations, the West might lose ground every day
without ever being aware, simply because the enemy’s propaganda mechanism leads the
populace to believe, for example, that Allah is punishing them with a lack of rain for their
cooperation with the infidels.
Importance of information. Information operations is actually a subset of each of the
four main components of asymmetric warfare rather than a separate component because
it permeates throughout every action within asymmetric warfare. It cannot be conducted
in isolation or delegated to one specialized section. The information warfare strategy must
be coordinated at the grand strategy level, and then it must be further coordinated at all
levels. Again, IO is not just PSYOP products or command messages. Every statement by
a Western spokesperson—whether a member of the government or not—and every action,
failure to act or overreaction (e.g., reacting too harshly to an insurgent attack, thereby
causingcollateraldamage)onthepartoftheUnitedStatesconstitutesinformationoperations
and carries with it the potential to increase the enemy’s numbers rather than attritting
them. Political, Clauswitzian ends are the key.
Note once again that each description of a subset of asymmetric warfare barely
scratches the surface of understanding the subject. The point, however, is that a grand
strategist must take each of the subsets into account to fully appreciate all aspects of the
war the United States is currently fighting—and of any foreseeable future war, for that
matter.
Concrete definitions. Asymmetric warfare is the type of war the United States and its
allies will face in the foreseeable future. When planning grand strategy and force levels
one must weigh the threats and then balance forces, develop policy and conduct actions
25

against those threats. If the asymmetric threat outweighs the traditional threat, U.S. forces,
strategy, policy, actions and even thought must be balanced accordingly. If force planners,
strategists, soldiers, academics, bureaucrats, legislators, executives and citizens have a
better understanding of the type of warfare in which the United States is engaged, their
actions will be better integrated.
Until recently, only elements of the CIA, elements of the FBI and elements of DoD
dealt with asymmetric warfare—albeit calling it by other terms. For example, DoD has
one assistant secretary out of ten and one unified commander out of ten who deals with
asymmetric warfare. Yet it is the nation’s primary threat and focus of operations.
The 2006 QDR’s force-planning diagram addresses the concept of the threat facing
the United States. The Army is well on its way toward transformation. The QDR calls for
an increase in Special Forces, psychological operations and civil affairs and for a focus on
irregular warfare. However, much of the U.S. defense budget is still focused on winning a
conventional military war. Projects such as the F/A-22 fighter program and the Navy’s
littoral combat ships and attack submarines are still fully funded—citing the need for
preparation against a traditional threat such as China. If the greatest threat to the United
States comes from lacking supremacy on the high seas or in the sky, these investments
make sense. If, however, the primary threat lies elsewhere, making U.S. military forces
better at that at which they already excel is a squandered investment. Besides, as Kilcullen
stated: “If you think the Chinese pose a real traditional threat—well—they were the ones
who wrote the book on unrestricted warfare, weren’t they?”77
Threats to the United
States, even from a large conventional force, will be greatest in the asymmetric realm.
Also, where the 2006 QDR lacks understanding of the overall concept of asymmetric
warfare is in its statement of DoD’s new priorities: defeating terrorist networks; defending
the homeland in depth; and shaping the choices of countries at strategic crossroads. This
means dissuading China, Russia and India from becoming potential enemies and preventing
hostile states and non-state actors from acquiring or using weapons of mass destruction.78
Sadly missing from these priorities was nation-building, counterinsurgency and winning
the hearts and minds of the Muslim world so the West can end this war, or at least shift
the focus to simply rooting out terrorists, because al Qaeda will no longer have popular
support and will stop behaving like global-transnational insurgents.
But overall, the QDR does demonstrate that DoD has a decent understanding of the
type of war the United States is fighting. What is needed most is an understanding by
all of the other departments and agencies of the federal, state and local governments as
well as an understanding by all of the Western nations, by U.S. allies in the Middle
East, Asia and Africa, and by all members of the United Nations that they have a
tremendous role to play in winning this asymmetric war—and they all have much to lose
by accepting defeat. Most federal agencies have taken only small steps to recognize their
role in asymmetric warfare and to reorganize to best fulfill that role. Current action at the
26

local or international level is trivial; most agencies are waiting for the U.S. military to
“win”inthetraditional/symmetricsense.Thiswillnothappenthroughmilitaryactionalone.
Relying on the military and the intelligence apparatus will not defeat an asymmetric threat.
Policy Recommendations
EarlierIproposedthefollowingdefinitionofasymmetricwarfare:
Asymmetric warfare is population-centric nontraditional warfare waged
between a militarily superior power and one or more inferior powers which
encompasses all the following aspects: evaluating and defeating asymmetric
threat, conducting asymmetric operations, understanding cultural asymmetry
and evaluating asymmetric cost.
It is important to consider what the definition means in practice.
U.S. policymakers need to accept a comprehensive definition of asymmetric warfare
and use it to transform U.S. grand strategy; the concept of asymmetry must be addressed
in all national strategy documents. They should then evaluate both traditional threats and
asymmetric threats and allocate resources accordingly. The United States should restructure
its current bureaucracy to wage asymmetric warfare. The 2006 QDR shows an
understanding of some of the concepts of asymmetric warfare and demonstrates that
these concepts are being applied to transformation in the Army and Marine Corps.
Transformation, restructuring and mission focus must be applied to all areas of the
government, not just elements of DoD.
First and foremost, the mind-set of Phase 4 operations—that once the fighting is over,
the United States begins to rebuild a nation—must change. Concepts that strictly designate
a combat zone or a front line must evolve. Asymmetric warfare is amorphous—people at
work in downtown New York found themselves in a combat zone on 9/11. Traditional
concepts of what constitutes a battlefield and who can and cannot go to war have impeded
much progress on the battlefield over the last five years.
Next, every federal department must become deployable. Currently, the military is
organized into strategic, operational and tactical elements; most other federal departments
are not organized into tactical elements that can deploy. However, the military is ill-
equipped to shoulder the full responsibility for building a country, creating stability and
winning over a population. Military commanders know little about establishing commerce,
monetary policy, agricultural assistance, sewage, electricity, an education system, local
governments, police forces, judicial systems, banks, etc. If the Departments of Education,
Agriculture, Justice, Commerce, Treasury, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban
Development, Energy, Labor and Interior looked within their personnel, they might find
highly skilled and very motivated people who would be willing to risk their lives to serve
their country in a war effort. Their skills can win the support of a population much better
than those of an infantryman or tanker.
27

The study by the Center for Strategic and International Affairs (CSIS) entitled Beyond
Goldwater-Nichols:U.S. Government and Defense Reform for a New Strategic Era79
prescribes an excellent policy recommendation for interagency coordination and effort.
The measures taken by the State Department’s Office of the Coordinator for Stability and
Reconstruction are an excellent first step in this direction.80
Next, the State Department
needs to greatly expand its mandate, its scope of operations and its modus operandi. It
must be equipped to take the primary role in directing and coordinating this war, to engage
a population either through a foreign government or directly. And it must lead, direct and
evaluate all aspects of the information operations campaign. Other U.S. government
departments must be involved as well.
Finally, the United States needs a national acceptance and understanding that it is
engagedinanasymmetricwar.Thenationmustmobilizeitsindustryandpopulation.Federal
government departments are only the beginning of the human resources and expertise
needed to win over a target population. Local experts on such services as law enforcement,
sewage, education and electricity—just to name a few—are also crucial. During World
War II, this nation’s industry rallied behind the war effort. In a war of ideas where
information operations are so important, why are the brightest minds in the United States
focused on convincing more young Americans to prefer one soft drink over another, or
convincing more voters in the Midwest to vote for one party over the other? How many
Wharton marketing MBAs or Harvard political analysts are trying to show the young
Muslim population of the world that U.S. interests do not conflict with their religious
beliefs? That the United States is a secular society that makes no religious judgment? That
working with the United States is greatly within their material interests? That the United
States simply wishes to rebuild their country into greatness rather to than exploit it—
looking at Germany and Japan as examples? And finally, that the enemy seeks only to
build his own power at the cost of young Muslim lives and suffering? The brightest minds
of the enemy are convincing them of the opposite.
These are only the beginnings of the policy changes that are needed. A very large-
scale analysis must be commissioned to study all aspects of the new face of war and how
to fight it. Many attempts have been made in the right direction, not the least of which was
the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the National Intelligence Director
and the National Counter-Terrorism Center in an attempt to give many of the federal
departments and agencies a unified focus towards the war effort—at least in defense of
the homeland. However, just as a counterinsurgent is most at risk if he or she stays within
the compound rather than engaging the population, the United States must have an
expeditionary government that understands the enemy, understands the center of gravity—
the Muslim population—and is organized and equipped to engage them.
In a recent address to the Council on Foreign Relations, National Security Advisor
Stephen Hadley stated:
28

[T]he new international environment also brought new security challenges. Instead
of great power conflict, the United States found itself confronted by a more diffuse
array of threats. The attacks on the Homeland on September 11, 2001, provided
a stark demonstration of the most serious dangers we and our friends and allies
face. A terrorist enemy showed it could attack America and kill thousands of our
citizens. This same terrorist enemy operated out of a national safe haven—
Afghanistan—where it sought to develop weapons of mass destruction and
inculcated in its recruits a murderous ideology.
Since that tragic day, the United States and its allies have waged war against al
Qaeda, its associates and supporters, and the deadly scourge of terror and
intimidation more broadly. An international coalition has taken the fight to the
enemy, targeting its leadership, denying it safe havens, and disrupting what it needs
to support its operations.81
Here Hadley demonstrates that he understands the nation is facing an asymmetric
threat, yet he fails to grasp the overall concept of asymmetric warfare. The war he sees is
enemy-centric (taking “the fight to the enemy, targeting its leadership”) and terrain-centric:
(“denying it safe havens”). He fails to mention any strategy for winning the respect and
cooperation of the Muslim community that is the enemy’s center of gravity and political
objective. He does not mention any asymmetric objective—only traditional military
objectives. He mentions the “most serious dangers that we and our friends and allies
face,” but the average Iraqi citizen is in much greater danger than the average Western
citizen—and they are the target population.
In the future, the United States could conceivably fight another traditional war—either
enemy-orterrain-focused,facinganorganizedmilitaryrepresentingthelegitimateauthority
of a nation-state. However, even traditional warfare will have asymmetric implications.
OIF-1 was a traditional, enemy-centric war fought against the organized army of a hostile
nation-state. However, OIF-1 led directly into an asymmetric conflict of epic proportions.
It is a valid assumption that any future conflict with Iran, North Korea or China not only
would be fought by both conventional and asymmetric means by the enemy but could also
have tremendous asymmetric consequences after the conventional victory.
The West is currently at a turning point. The United States could turn this war into a
victory, or it could dissolve into defeat—simply because the nation fails to recognize the
war it is fighting. Asymmetric warfare is waged differently by each side, and the victor is
not preordained. It can be won, but not by blindly charging into the fray, chasing terrorists
without concern for the effect on the population—because population is the true objective
for each side. The first step in winning a war is knowing what type of war one is fighting.
By understanding asymmetric warfare and its policy implications, the United States will
be able to effectively coordinate its actions to achieve victory.
29

31
Endnotes
1
Hereafter referred to as “9/11.”
2
President John F. Kennedy, Remarks to the Graduating Class of the U.S. Military Academy, West
Point, N.Y., June 6, 1962.
3
Merriam-Webster Online, http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/warfare.
4
Or policy. The German word translates to either English word, although the two English
words have very different meanings. See John Nagl, Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife:
Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam (Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 2002) pp. 16–25, for an interesting discussion on Clausewitz vs. Jomini; and
Christopher Bassford, Clausewitz and His Works (written for the U.S. Army War College in
1996 and somewhat modified in May 1998, early 2000 and early 2002), available online at
http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/CWZSUMM/CWORKHOL.htm#Politik, for an interesting
discussion on the difference between “politics” and “policy” as it applies to Clausewitz.
5
Carl von Clausewitz, eds./trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret, On War (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1976), book 1, chapter 1, section 25.
6
Dr. Stephen Metz and Dr. Douglas Johnson II, in Asymmetry and U.S. Military Strategy:
Definition, Background, and Strategic Concepts (Carlisle, Pa.: U.S. Army Strategic Studies
Institute, January 2001) argue that this type of qualitative force capability vs. quantitative force
capacity equated to a type of “asymmetric warfare” that was fought by the two poles during the
Cold War.
7
Available online at http://www.genevaconventions.org/.
8
Metz and Johnson, Asymmetry and U.S. Military Strategy, p. 2.
9
The realist doctrine is based on the concept that states behave as rational actors who strive for
relative gain and understand self-preservation. It was first noted in the Melian Debate in
Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War, and has been argued as the dominant international relations
theory by scholars E. H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz, among many others.
10
Ibid., p. 3.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid., p. 5.
13
Interview with Melissa Applegate, 18 April 2006.
14
15
Applegate interview, 18 April 2006.
16
Director, Office of Force Transformation, Elements of Defense Transformation (Washington, D.C.:
Department of Defense, October 2004), p. 4. Available online at www.oft.osd.mil.
17
General Richard B. Myers, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 4 February 2004, quoted in Elements of
Defense Transformation, p. 4.
18
Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report (Washington,
D.C.: Department of Defense, 6 February 2006), hereafter referred to as “QDR 2006.”
19
QDR 2006, p. 1.

20
Ibid., p. 19.
21
Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html.
22
Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/.
23
Available online at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/dod/nds-usa_mar2005.htm.
24
Available online at http://www.defenselink.mil/pdf/NMS-CWMD2006.pdf.
25
Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_national_strategy_20051130.pdf.
26
Sun Tzu, trans. Samuel B. Griffith, The Art of War (London: Oxford University Press, 1971),
pp. 66–67.
27
B. H. Liddell Hart, Strategy, 2nd Revised Edition (New York: Signet, 1974).
28
Clausewitz, On War, book 1, chapter 1, section 25.
29
Quoted in Melissa Applegate, Preparing for Asymmetry: As Seen Through the Lens of Joint
Vision 2020 (Carlisle, Pa.: U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute, September 2001).
30
T. E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom (Hertfordshire, England: Wordsworth Classics of World
Literature, 1935 and 1997).
31
Ibid.
32
David Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare, Theory and Practice (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood
Publishing, 1964).
33
Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare, pp. 5–7.
34
Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, Unrestricted Warfare (Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing
House, February 1999). Translated by Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS).
35
Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, Unrestricted Warfare, pp. 1–9.
36
Bruce Berkowitz, The New Face of War: How War Will be Fought in the 21st Century (New York:
The Free Press, 2003).
37
Martin Van Creveld, The Transformation of War (New York: The Free Press, 1991).
38
Metz and Johnson, Asymmetry and U.S. Military Strategy, p. iii.
39
Robert D. Steele, The New Craft of Intelligence: Achieving Asymmetric Advantage in the Face of
Nontraditional Threats (Carlisle, Pa.: U.S. Army Security Studies, February 2002), p. iii.
40
Dr. Max G. Manwaring, Internal Wars: Rethinking Problem and Response (Carlisle, Pa.: U.S. Army
Strategic Studies Institute, September 2001).
41
Applegate, Preparing for Asymmetry, p. 2.
42
Applegate interview, 18 April 2006.
43
Robert D. Steele, The New Craft of Intelligence, p. v.
44
At that time General Meigs, who holds a PhD in History, had recently served as the commander of
U.S. Army Europe, had served two tours in Bosnia (one as the 1st Infantry Division commander
and the other as the senior military commander of the Stabilization Force) and was serving as a full
professor at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University.
32

45
General Montgomery Meigs, USA Ret., PhD, “Unorthodox Thoughts about Asymmetric Warfare,”
Parameters, Summer 2003, pp. 4–5.
46
Dr. Stephen J. Blank, Rethinking Asymmetric Threats (Carlisle, Pa.: U.S. Army Security Studies
Institute, September 2003), p. v.
47
LTG James J. Lovelace and BG Joseph L. Votel, “The Asymmetric Warfare Group: Closing the
Capability Gap,” ARMY, March 2005, p. 32.
48
Joint Strategic Review, 1999 (Washington, D.C.: The Joint Staff, 1999), p. 2.
49
50
Ibid., pp. 5–8.
51
Ibid., pp. 8–12.
52
Interview with Colonel Robert Shaw, USA, 7 April 2006.
53
Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare.
54
General Anthony Zinni, USMC Ret., in a speech delivered at Georgetown University,
23 September 2005.
55
Meigs, “Unorthodox Thoughts about Asymmetric Warfare,” p. 4.
56
Interview with Major General John Landry, USA Ret., 20 April 2006.
57
Ibid.
58
Shaw interview, 7 April 2006.
59
Interview with Dr. David Kilcullen, 3 March 2006.
60
Ibid.
61
Interview with Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl, USA, 7 March 2006.
62
Kilcullen interview, 3 March 2006.
63
Actually, Dr. Kilcullen believes that asymmetric warfare is more than population-centric—it is
environment-centric. The extrapolation that it is population-centric is my own.
64
Kilcullen interview, 3 March 2006.
65
Landry interview, 20 April 2006.
66
67
Ibid., p. 11.
68
Or better yet, to identify the enemy’s strategy, since he learned how strong the American will can
be when average American citizens are attacked on their own homeland. Is it possible that the
terrorists, in this war of ideas and population, would not want to urge the American people on to
pursuing the military goals in the Middle East?
69
70
Clausewitz, On War.
71
72
For an interesting study of the primacy and evolution of Information Warfare, see Berkowitz, The
New Face of War.
33

73
Among other ideas—this is the drastically simplified version.
74
This assessment is based on the author’s own experience in Afghanistan and Iraq.
75
Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare, pp. 11–12, substituting “asymmetric enemy” for “insurgent’
and “we” for “counterinsurgent.”
76
Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare, pp. 11–12.
77
Kilcullen interview.
78
QDR 2006.
79
Christine E. Wormuth, principal author, Michèle A. Flournoy, Patrick T. Henry and Clark A.
Murdock, co-authors, Beyond Goldwater-Nichols: U.S. Government and Defense Reform for a
New Strategic Era, Phases I (1 March 2004) and II (28 July 2005) (Washington, D.C.: Center for
Strategic and International Studies), available online at http://www.csis.org/
index.php?option=com_csis_pubs&task=list&type=1.
80
See Department of State’s Office of the Coordinator for Stability and Reconstruction (S/CRS)
website at http://www.state.gov/s/crs/.
81
Stephen Hadley, National Security Advisor, in address to the Council on Foreign Relations,
18 October 2005, available online at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051018-6.html.
34

Defining asymmetric warfare

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Defining asymmetric warfare (15)

More from Lex Pit (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Defining asymmetric warfare