Defining Asymmetric Warfare
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TH E LA N D WAR FA R E PAP E R S No. 58 SEPTEMBER 2006 Defining Asymmetric War f a r e David L. Buffaloe A National Security Af fairs Paper Published on Occasion by THE INSTITUTE OF LAND WA R FA R E A S S O C I ATION OF T H E UNITED STATES A R M Y Arlington, Vi r g i n i a Defining Asymmetric Warfare 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 Defining Asymmetric Warfare by David L. Buffaloe 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. 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 [email protected] or telephone: (direct dial) 703-907-2627 or (toll free) 1-800-336-4570, ext. 226. i i Contents 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 i i i iv Foreword 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. GORDON R. SULLIVAN General, United States Army Retired President, AUSA September 2006 v vi Defining Asymmetric Warfare 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 elevated warfare itself to a worldwide level, 9/11 brought a global dimension to terrorism. The difference today is that the enemy takes on many faces and methods: terrorism, insurgency, war of information and ideas, war of disruptive threats, attacks using bioweapons through the mail or cyber-attacks on the Internet, war waged by non-state actors against the sole remaining superpower. The face and method not used by the current enemy is what is known as “traditional warfare”—warfare conducted by the legitimate military forces of nation-states, wherein the objective is either terrain- or enemy-focused. The 9/11 attacks did not signify an end to traditional warfare. On the contrary, in 2003 the United States fought a traditional war against the forces 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 throughout the world? 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 prevalent in U.S. universities; students of Soviet strategy examined communist theory to better understand the enemy; clandestine intelligence organizations as well as high-tech intelligence platforms came into existence and became focused on the enemy of the United States. Now that the Soviet Union is dissolved, now that the United States is the only superpower in the world, now that an enemy of the United States has launched an attack on the American 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: This is another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin—war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of by combat; by infiltration, instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him. It preys on economic unrest and ethnic conflicts. It requires in those situations where we must counter it, and these are the kinds of challenges that will be 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 military training.2 1 The statement seems to have hit the mark, but the speaker was President John F. Kennedy and