This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Asymmetric Warfare

Having been tasked to provide formal comment to the "definition" of Asymmetric Warfare:

Concur with LTC ***'s Assessment. The bottom line is, warfare is inherently asymmetric. The term Asymmetric Warfare seems to have become a throwaway intended to roll up many and varied types of warfare (e.g. Irregular) and operational principles (e.g., surprise, mass) under an asymmetric umbrella as he effectively points out.

LTC ***'s recommended definition is as follows:

Asymmetric Warfare: Actions taken to counter asymmetric threats.

Note: This definition might support a term such as Asymmetric Countermeasures or, as I recommend, be used as part of the definition of Aysmmetric Operations or Actions. It does not support a term as broad based as Asymmetric Warfare, however.

Recommendation: The term Asymmetric Warfare should be dropped completely.

The following terms can effectively capture asymmetry as it relates to military operations:

Asymmetric Operations / Actions: Operations or actions designed specifically to exploit an asymmetric advantage or counter an asymmetric threat.

Asymmetric threat: A threat emanating from the potential employment of strategies, tactics, equipment or technologies that an adversary cannot or will not use, cannot effectively defend against and are designed to obtain a disproportionate result.

Note 1: The mere existence of an asymmetry doesn't necessarily make it a threat. An asymmetry only becomes a threat if there is an advantage that can be exploited by the employment or threatened employment of it.

Note 2: It must be noted that asymmetry is a two way street. Do not define asymmetric threat from just a U.S. perspective.

Asymmetric threats include but are certainly not limited to:

Strategic threats - funding terrorist groups to launch attacks, fighting not to win but to lose, intentionally exposing one's own population to casualties, actually attacking one's own population, fighting to the death, negotiating treaties with the intent to contravene the conventions of the treaty. Tactical threats - surprise first strikes, shock and awe, terrorist attacks, suicide attacks, particularly brutal attacks, indiscriminate attacks on civilians and neutrals, environmental attacks. Equipment threats - nuclear weapons, biological and chemical weapons, use of lasers for blinding, use of some types of mines, weapons of mass destruction. Technological threats – attacks on satellite systems (including the attacker's), attacks on information systems (including the attacker's), unexpected technological advances, and innovative uses of existing technologies

MErge with the guerrila ARTICLE Please!

Inconsistency in the article: terrorism

Having read the article as well as the talk below, it strikes me there is an inconsistency in the article. Quoting from it:

Asymmetric warfare is not synonymous with terrorism. Rather, terrorism is sometimes used as a tactic by the weaker side in an asymmetric conflict. ... In the classic rules of war ... asymmetric warfare is completely moral in and of itself, all other rules of war being obeyed. This entails: (*) Non combatants cannot be attacked (thus terrorism is outlawed); (*) The war is a properly declared war, with an accountable authority on both sides who can also put an end to the war.

Hence, the final section -the one on Al-Qaeda- seems grossly misplaced and an example contradicting to the definition of the subject matter. Mikademus 10:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the Al-Qaeda section. It was terribly written anyway, and, because of the nature of Al-Qaeda and similar groups, it is entirely opinion whether or not they were responsible for any given act of terrorism. I did wonder if this section ought to simply be deleted but, on further consideration, I think it makes a useful point about how conventional warfare, asymmetric warfare and terrorism seem to be melding together in the modern world. Hopefully this is clearer and less opinionated. I also added a section addressing the above concern somewhat. Josh Bayes 01:46, 31.03.06

This and that

"The multi-national presence of Al-Qaida, accused of carrying out the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States"

You mean it hasn't been proven?

Not in a court.

Septegram 13:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hasn't OBL or Zarqawi claimed responsibility in a press release/video?

I can claim that I built the Statue of Liberty. Does that make it true? Almighty Tallest 21:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, except that there is a large body of evidence that Al-Qaida did do it, the black boxes that were on the planes being the biggest piece. As well there was an inquiry into the attack that said they did it, their was video of the terrorists getting tickets at the airport and appearing to board the planes and Al-Qaida said they did it. No other terrorist group took credit and no motive that is based upon evidence has been put forward to support the idea it was anything but terrorism. Of course this doesn't mean that Al-Qaida did it, it just means that if you have one group claiming they did it and the evidence points in that direction, then they can be accepted to have done it until another theory comes along that is based upon evidence and not theory. It has nothing to do with what did happen and everything with what was most likely to have happened. If good new evidence appears then a disputing theory develops, without physical evidence everything else is a conspiracy theory Colin 8 01:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got to chime in here -- saying "accused" is silly, seeing as Al-Qaida is for all practical purposes defined as, "that terrorist group that carried out the 9-11 attacks". - James

The original version of this page appears to have been one of 24's rants. I've trimmed down the more obvious bias and nonsense, but like much of 24's stuff, there is some good material too.

This article needs careful review for bias and editing for NPOV.

Why are the "anarchist assassains'" "political motive[s]... obscure or incomprehensible"? --Daniel C. Boyer

This article is mostly a POV advocacy piece, mixing a kitchen sink of ideas.

Terrorism

Clearly we need to bridge this topic. C-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y-! ;) Specifically, where is the line drawn? When does carpet bombing become war crime or state terrorism? When does a pipe bomb go from a valid weapon against a legitimate enemy to a criminal act of terror against civilians? I think we need to clarify these things as best we can, as this info is sorely needed these days. Sam Spade 09:46, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To approach the topic clearly, I think we need to separate out rhetorical positions from substantive ones. "State terrorism" is used as a counterpoint to "terrorism" (i.e., I do it, but you do it, so it's OK). When a state actor is involved in a legitimate war, the question is whether the action violates the laws of war or not. To answer your specific questions, carpet bombing becomes a war crime if it exceeds military necessity (wanton destruction) or targets a civilian population; you answered your own question on the pipe bomb--the difference is legitimate enemy vs. civilians Cecropia 10:53, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me the distinction being made between asymmetric warfare and terrorism by Sam Spade is entirely relative. Many 'terrorist' groups have causes just as worthy as any fought by the states they oppose, however, since they are independant of any particular nation they will be labelled as terrorists by those they oppose no matter how 'fair' they fight. Why is what happened in London so much worse than what happened with the 'shock and awe' campaign.

The use of weapons against an enemy and the use of "unconventional" or "asymmetrical" tactics are not in dispute here. The difference is this. The aim of terrorists is to create disorder in order to fill the vacuum of order with people who agree with or sympathize with their cause. The goals of a MILITARY force is to take and hold the objective, restoring order and peace. The shock and awe campaign was a lawful military tactic used against a tangible enemy force. Intentional targeting of civilians changes the nature of the act. When a state or organization has a consistant policy of targeting civilians, the legitimacy of that state or group is lost. "Fair" has nothing to do with it. If you are to compare a targeting of civilians by a terrorist organization to the specific targeting of military objectives during a conflict, then your distinction is relative as well.Hardcorps103 00:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How to deal with rampant POV?

I'm fretting over the article Asymmetric warfare. The original author seems to be making a sincere effort to put forward what he/she thinks the subject is about, but it amounts to an extensive POV, mixing incomparable elements, personal musings and attempting to reach a conclusion.

I know something about the subject, having taught related subjects in the US Army, and the subject is worthy of discussion, but I'm not comfortable essentially throwing out someone else's work and writing the article new.

This is not the only such article. I'm tempted to simply leave them alone, but it makes wikipedia very un-encyclopedic, if someone were actually researching a subject.

Opinions? About this and the issue of near totally POV articles in general? Cecropia 14:46, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are quite welcome to completely re-write articles if you want see Wikipedia:be bold in updating pages If you think the present article is beyond salvage. I have done on occasions and I have also had some of my articles completely re-written by other people, although it might be better to try to integrate changes with the existing text G-Man 14:54, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In this case, if you know that this (really long) article is riddled with POV and since it isn't the focus of edit wars and you wont be upsetting a delicate balance, I suggest that you can be quite radical. If you're willing to do the work this involves, I suggest that you write a good solid stub from scratch and replace the current article. If the current article contains anything useful then copy it to the talk page first, or summarise the key points it makes which should still be included (albeit it correctly flagged as a certain POV). Then build on the stub, reintergrating anything you want to keep into the new article, expand it and add balance where appropriate. If you document all these stages on the talk page, you may even encourage other knowledgeable people to join you in creating a much better article. :) This might be too radical an approach for articles which have escalated into an edit war, in which case you might propose completely rewriting the article on the talk page, and solicit a lot more opinions in order to reach a consensus. fabiform | talk 15:00, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, you guys are encouraging me. It's a complex subject and might be more controversial if more people really knew what it was. I'll see if I can upgrade it modularly. Cecropia 23:14, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A further thought: Set it in context at the start. "Asymmetrical warfare is an inherently freighted term expressing the value judgment that..." Thus you can discuss the subject within its defined bounds. Not all point-of-view need be smoothed into cream pudding. Sometimes a statement that seems to lack any objective reality springs into crisp focus when the opening words set the context: "In Arianism..." "In Catholic dogma..." or "From the standpoint of..."etc. Wetman 14:37, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't the links to Khobar Towers and Cole bombing be removed from this article? They are just examples of minor terrorist action. Pavel Vozenilek 17:11, 19 Dec 2004

I hardly think so, as these are what I consider to be defining examples of the concept. What could be more asymmetrical that two attackers in a $2000 boat with a couple of thousand dollars worth of explosive doing the following, here using the Cole attack as an example:

1). Almost sinking a ~~capital~~ warship costing many hundreds of millions of dollars. A slightly different attack point would have flooded two engine rooms, not one, and would have ensured the sinking of this ship, creating much more damage and expense of both recovery and rehabilitation.

2) Exchanging two lives for 17, or two casualties for 56, considered a highly favorable kill ratio in any conventional warfare.

3.) Causing great damage to the reputation of a world superpower, demonstrating that it is not immune from attack.

Similar considerations apply to Khobar towers, and even more so with 9/11, with a three hundred thousand dollar project cost yielding perhaps up to ten billion dollars in direct and indirect damage, a damage/expense effectiveness ratio of thirty thousand to one. Leonard G. 02:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The attacks on Khobar Towers and the USS Cole cannot be considered terrorism, because they were not civilian targets. Terrorism, by definition, is violent surprise attack on civilian targets in an effort to sway public opinion through fear and intimidation. Khobar Towers was housing U.S. Air Force personnel at the time it was attacked. The USS Cole was a U.S. Navy vessel. The very nature of the targets attacked in these cases precludes defining said attacks as terrorism.

Warfare is defined here as conflict between relatively large groups of people, not as attack of few (organized) individuals. Pavel Vozenilek 20:23, 20

Dec 2004 (UTC)

So if I hit you after you have hit me first what is that called? What about if I hit you out of nowhere for something your 2nd cousin twice removed did to me? The distinction of terrorism may be disputed, but an unwarranted attack cannot be defined as warfare. The fact that it was a military target does not change the nature of the act. Hardcorps103 00:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction

The USS Cole is a DDG (Guided Missle Destroyer) and therefore is not a "capital warship." DDG's are escort ships for the capital ships in battle groups and are also assigned to other patrol and escort duties. Pvfd117 00:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

War by Proxy

at the beginning of the "War By Proxy" section, it reads "This conclusion is contraversial". what conclusion is it referring to?

You pushed me to update the article as I've been meaning to do. Done Cecropia 19:33, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why is this section even in this article? I agree that it should be referenced, but it seems like it should have its own article and not take up space here. -Athaler 20:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

British SOE and American OSS

How to tie up lots of the enemy at little cost to your own side by using Guerrillas or in Churchill's words "To set Europe Ablaze"

This is classic example of the difference between guerrilla warfare from the tactical level where it may not be Asymmetric warfare, while remaining so at the strategic level, it was for the Western allies in WWII.

The section War by proxy does not mention these examples and the last thing anyone wanted to do was deny that they were taking place. It helped to deny the German assertions that the Occupied Countries' populations were happy with occupation! Philip Baird Shearer 02:25, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

IRA

The provisional IRA were secretly supported by the Irish Government at the start of the recent troubles, because they are based in the North and it gutted the Official IRA which was the problem South of the boarder. Two members of the Irish Government were later charged and cleared on gun-running. Once that limited objective had been achived, (and the British Army had been deployed stopping what is now called ethnic cleansing,) the support ended. The last sentence but the disassociation is intended to blunt the lesser charge that the government is not controlling a hostile group within its borders is not true. The IRA lost the Irish Civil War against the Irish Free State. The Irish Government is the descendant of the winning side. It never supported taking the North with force, that is one of the things the Irish Civil War was fought over. The IRA are banned because they are a threat to the Irish State! 'Nothing is as simple as the statements in the page when it comes to the IRA, NI and Anglo-Irish politics! [1]

I would suggest removing it as an example because it is too complicated and controversial a subject to use as an example in a page like this. Philip Baird Shearer 02:25, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

What is a fourth generation war?

I posted this question on 25 May 2004 does any one know? Philip Baird Shearer 10:56, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No answer after 6 months so I removed:

In modern context, asymmetric warfare is increasingly considered a component of fourth generation warfare. When practiced outside the laws of war, it is often pejoratively and inaccurately characterized as "terrorism."

--Philip Baird Shearer 22:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

origins of the word Guerrilla

Theses are notes on a thread which I think needs adding to this page:

The Peninsular War the origin of the word Guerrilla, The Spanish guerrillas tying down 10 of thousands of French troops; and British self-serving aid to help them do it cost Britain much less than it would have done to equip British soldiers to face the French troops in conventional warfare.

Commandos

In my opinion there is a whole chapter on Asymmetric warfare missing at the moment. Theses are notes on a section which needs adding to this page. This is not meant to be a specifically British section it is just that I know more about it so I am using the UK armed forcesas an example.

The Second Boer War and the way that less than 20,000 Bores kept 450,000 British Empire tied up in knots after the conventional war was over. The number of Empire troops during the conventional phase of the war was much smaller. Of particular interest are the deep cammando raids into the Cape Province lead by Jan Smuts. The best narrative on this is 'Commando by Deneys Reitz

Winston Churchill and the formation of the British Commando as he had been on the receiving end in SA. The Green Berets link between the British Commandos and the American special forces e.g. U.S. Army Rangers

The WWII Desert War and the development of the SAS who's NATO job is deep penetration of enemy lines. Not the same as the Commandos which use standard army units, the SAS use and operate in smaller units.

The WWII Burma War under General Slim and the Chindits. The ideas of the of bases set up in enemy territory and supplied by air and then launching offencive operations.

All these ideas were bought together in the last two chapters of a book called called Commando Extraordinary Otto Skorzeny by Charles Foley published in 1954. Whilst not calling the the ideas Asymmetric warfare he called it a "Strategic Assault Corps" it has all the ideas.

Sir Robert Thompson, the counter-insurgency expert, who served with the Chindits, Malaya, Borneo, and Head of British Advisory Mission in Vietnam, wrote extensively about this subject. His Auto Biography Make For the Hills, shows that the best example to date where the British have used Asymmetric Warfare successfully was the Indonesian Confrontation 1962-66. The SAS found Indonesian troop formations and the Gurkhas dispatched or persuaded them to stay on their side of the boarder. Philip Baird Shearer 02:25, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Removed some text that seemed irrelevant and incoherent Roadrunner 22:30, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't usually agree with the ellision of entire paragraphs, but I do in this case. Most of the article was like that. I rewrote large portions of it several months ago and never got to those. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:25, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia:"terrorism is not the same as AW; terrorism is primarily a political description, not a military one." I dont disagree with the rewrite, but these days its a bit hard to go along with the party line, regarding how the military defines its methods, when some "assymetric" elements within the military can be so (FLOABT) "political." The only thing I suggest is that the term be qualified as a military one, so "Assymetric warfare is a military term..." -Stevertigo

Urban Warfare

copied text from Urban Warfare?

A lot of the text in the "urban warfare" section seems to be copied from the urban warfare article. --NeuronExMachina 04:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The statement "asymmetric warfare tends to take place inside densely populated urban terrain" is nonsense.

"The guerrillas must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." - Mao Tse-Tung. If the sea is predominantly urban, then an asymmetric war can be fought there. But other terrain is also used and mountains swamps, and jungle/forest can be utilised effectively by the weaker party. Here is a brief, none exclusive, list of post 1945 asymmetric conflicts which were not fought in cities

Most British colonial wars were not fought predominantly in cities.
The troubles in NI were as much about keeping control of the rural broader counties ("Bandit Country") as Belfast . The carefully planned ambush by the IRA on the Paras in 1979 at Warrenpoint makes the point.
France Vietnam experiance was dominated by Dien Bien Phu
The American fight, agains the Viet Cong, Post Tet Offensive, was predominatly a rural war.
Cambodia (Khmer Rouge)
Burma (post independence).
Soviet Afghanistan war.
PPK insurgency against the Turkish Government (and other Kurdish uprisings in other countries).
Many of the conflicts in Latin America.

Philip Baird Shearer 12:01, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Date-able material

Nonetheless, large scale conflicts remain the province of tightly organized armies, as evidenced most recently, in the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

However, the 2003 invasion of Iraq campaign has now moved into an asymmetric warfare phase as US alliance and coalition forces battle an insurgency by Iraqi and foreign militants. See 2003 Occupation of Iraq

Can the above be expressed without the use of the word 'now'? So that it will be accurate later?Pedant 01:42, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Large rearrangement

I am about to save a large rearrangement of the text. Nothing will be deleted in the move and one paragraph will be duplicate so that it can be split into two after the move. I think that these changes will bring some structure to the subject. I've used the Guerrilla page as a crude templates for these changes because I think that they are better structured articles.

I will make one simple copy edit after the first change and then leave it a lone for 24 hours so that if a number of people register their complains to the new format it will be easy to revert and I will not of spent too much time on it. Philip Baird Shearer 18:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How are we looking?

It seems to me that the article is looking a lot better than it did; a lot of POV stuff cleaned up, some pretty good edits in the last month or two. I'd say it's at least as good as a lot of other articles that don't have the "this needs to be cleaned up" message on them. Considering what a big subject it is, and that it's very current, there are certainly going to be more edits as time goes by, but I wouldn't say it's a sloppy article and we could probably lose the caveat. It's been over six months since anyone has had a complaint about the content. What does everyone else think? Kafziel 9 July 2005 16:27 (UCT)

The cleanup template was put in by User:Sam Spade 10 May 2005 01:09. Since you cleaned up that particularly nasty paragraph, I would be in favour of loosing the template. I still have not got around to putting in the Commandos/Chindits/SAS model thought :-( --Philip Baird Shearer 19:55, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Agincourt

The theory that longbows were largely ineffective at the Battle of Agincourt is far from being conclusively proven. The time frame is not a prehistoric period; short of definitive contradictory evidence (which, for all intents and purposes, will never arise, since the battle cannot be exactly reproduced), there is no reason to assume that the historical record of the last 600 years is incorrect based simply on a test made for entertaining television.

The advantage of high ground would be meaningless without ranged weapons capable of slowing an advance; if arrows from the longbow were unable to peirce their armor, the French would have quickly closed the gap, and all the English could have done is wait for them. In reality, it is much easier to make a flawless steel arrowhead than it is to make flawless steel armor plating. Even today, with our technology, very few portable armor systems could stop a direct shot from a steel-tipped longbow arrow.

The fact is, people are always more likely to readily accept theories that are completely contradictory to tradition or even common sense. Ironically, a statement tends to have a ring of truth to it when it opposes everything we already know. We assume that scholars must know something we don't. But if we push aside the theories, and look only at the facts, we see two things:

1. The English WERE outnumbered, by at least 3-2. This is not contested by archaeological evidence. If that doesn't sound like a lot, I suggest bringing 8,000 men to fight 12,000 men hand-to-hand, and see who has the advantage. 4,000 men is a big difference, and very difficult to overcome on an open field without archers.

2. The English DID win. As I said, the shape of the battlefield is not an advantage without effective ranged weapons. By taking advantage of superior technology, the English were able to exploit the terrain to win the battle.

The theory that archers played a minor role at Agincourt should be discussed on the page for the Battle of Agincourt, not here. In the context of asymmetric warfare, Agincourt remains a classic example of exploiting certain advantages to overcome larger numbers. I am removing El Caudillo's revision because it is not relevant to the discussion, and it is self-contradictory (in terms of high ground vs. ranged weapons). Kafziel

I have placed some of the details of the analysis of "The Great Warbow" by Dr. Mattew Strickland and Robert Hardy, Pub Sutton, 2005, ISBN 0750931671 under the Talk:Battle of Agincourt#A modified explanation of the battle but as Robert Hardy write on page 414 "Those who deny or decry the effectiveness of the great warbow of the later Middle Ages deceive them themselves and others" --Philip Baird Shearer 01:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Great Job !!

Great article, thanks for writing it !!

Boer War

After an initial phase, which was fought by both sides as a conventional war, the British captured Johannesburg the Boer's largest city the capitals of the two Boer Republics. [sic]

Sentence needs work by someone who knows the history. - Leonard G. 02:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

A change in conventional warfare

I changed when Saddam Hussein's regime was removed from power in 2003, the Iraq campaign moved into an asymmetric warfare phase as alliance and coalition forces met continued opposition from Iraqi and foreign insurgents. to when Saddam Hussein's regime was removed from power in 2003, the Iraq campaign moved into an asymmetric warfare phase as US-alliance and coalition forces met continued opposition from Iraqi and a smattering of foreign resistance fighters

I consider this to be a reasonable edit because at the time there was no legitimate government in Iraq (in the sense of in any way reflecting the will of the populace), and therefore the term "insurgent" was inappropriate because it implies an uprising against a stable, legitimate government. Fighting an army of occupation, however morally defensible the occupation may be, is an act of resistance, not insurgency.

I changed

alliance and coalition forces met continued opposition from Iraqi and foreign insurgents

to

alliance and coalition forces met continued opposition from Iraqi and a smattering of foreign resistance fighters

I consider this to be a reasonable edit because at the time there was no legitimate government in Iraq (in the sense of in any way reflecting the will of the populace), and therefore the term "insurgent" was inappropriate because it implies an uprising against a stable, legitimate government. Fighting an army of occupation, however morally defensible the occupation may be, is an act of resistance, not insurgency. Furthermore, it has been shown that the vast majority of fighting against Coalition forces has been by Iraqis, with only a relatively small number of foreigners involved.

I'm presenting this here in order to explain, not to justify, my edit, and will be entirely unsurprised to see my edits edited...

--Bruce: You're not kidding. The old version reads better, and you're drawing too fine a line with your definition.

Septegram 19:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

What pray were they resisting against? An insergency can be against an army of occupation just as easily as against a "legitimate [civilian] government". I refer you to Military occupation and the laws of war. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

They were resisting an invasion and occupation. "Insurgency" may be usable in this context, but "resistance" is more appropriate, IMO, and less ambiguous. The use of the term "resistance" clarifies the status of both the invaders and the indigenous fighters, whereas "insurgency" leaves the door open for the notion that an occupation force may be a legitimate government. Do you assert that "resistance" is less appropriate than "insurgency?"

I'll check your link when I have a minute.

Septegram 11:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I read the passage to which you referred, and it seems confusing. Does this mean to imply that simply by the fact of military occupation one gains legitimate title to territory? Were the Nazis, thereby, the legitimate authority in occupied France? It seems to me that the legitimacy of an occupation must rest on the justice of the war in question.

Septegram 12:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No it does not rest on justice it rests on international treaty obligations. If a beligerent power occupies territory they have a duty under international law to uphold local laws and customs. Article 42 and 43 of the Hague IV Convention of 1907 is quite explicit. [2]. There a lots more articles in Hague IV which makes it clear that beligent occupation is a legal entity under international law. There are also the sections in Wikisource:Fourth Geneva Convention which cover this as well note particularly Articles 5 and 6.

Given the above I do assert that "resistance" is less appropriate than "insurgency" because resistance has connontations of WWII and the Maquis to most English speakers which the word Insergency does not. Not all insergencies are popular resistance movements, but all resistence movements are insergencies. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I continue to disagree. The use of the term "resistance" is entirely appropriate because it has connotations of WWII and the Maquis. It is entirely legitimate to resist invasion and occupation, as the Iraqis are doing, as long as one does not descend into terrorism (i.e. by targeting civilians or acting with wanton disregard for the safety thereof). Furthermore, if "(n)ot all insurgencies are popular resistance movements, but all resistance movements are insurgencies," then it would be appropriate to use the more precise term "resistance" rather than the broader term "insurgency."

I'll have to check out your references, but don't have time right now.

Septegram 13:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Resistance has connotations which insurgents does not and is therefore a POV. BTW under law it is just s much a crime to kill a soldier as a civilian if the person doing the killing is not a lawful combatant. Once Bagdad was occupied and the Iraqi army had been told to go home, it is debatable if the the insergets are lawful combatants. I don't want to debate this here becasue there are other articles where this is covered in detail. But because there is a debate the term Insergent is more appropriate because it carries less POV. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

What inappropriate connotation does "resistance" carry that "insurgent" does not?

Because of the WWII connotations resistance carries an assumption of legitimate resistance. IMO an insergency is neutral it does not imply either legitimate or illegitimate. Philip Baird Shearer

How does a successful occupation render resistance unlawful, as you imply in your third sentence?

It is not the success or otherwise of the occupation but the legal reasons for doing it. For example the Kosovo occupation (KFOR) by NATO was a UN sanctioned occupation of part of Serbia, if any one had fought against that occupation then the resistance would be unlawful even if the methods they used were within the law of war. But to give another example: The Boers in the Second Boer War were in the last stages fighting a guerrilla war they were still entitled to be treated as lawful combatants because they were carrying their guns openly and still had a recognised chain of command to a government in exile. If that government had been captured in Petoria when the city fell and forced to sign a surrender document, then any Boer commandos who had continued to resist would probably have been deemed to have been unlawful combatants because they would not have been in the armed forces of a party to the conflict and would not have been in a reconisable chain of command. (Which BTW is one of the reasons for the PIRA having an Army Council as they argued that their volunteers were in a military chain of command as legitimate as that of the British). I written more than I ment to on this subject :-( --Philip Baird Shearer 00:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I read the "lawful combatant" article, and I find it disturbing. The French Resistance during WWII, for example, would seem to have not been "lawful combatants" under this description. The article implies that individual citizens of an occupied country may not legitimately take action against a hostile occupation. If that is, in fact, part of international law, I find it highly disturbing, and must wonder at the motivation of those writing/signing that particular section of the law.

Septegram 15:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

To resist an occupation is not illegal indeed the Fourth Geneva Convention gives protection to the civilian population against an occupying army as does the earlier 1907 IV Hague Convention. But if resistance involves armed resistance then there laws of war which have to be observed if the insurgent is to be a lawful combatant. If the insurgent uses methods which are not lawful for combatants, then when captured and after they have been in front of a competent tribunal, they do not have the protection of being POWs and can be tried as a civilian for committing a murder if they kill a soldier belonging to the occupying force. If on the other hand they are lawful combatants then killing a soldier is not an unlawful act and they can not be found guilty of murder. Many countries including the UK (but not the US) have signed up to the additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions which for international conflicts is Protocol I. It is worth reading [3] which is footnote 2 the Wikipedia "Protocol I" article as it expands on what the British think Article 44 means.

So to reiterate I think insurgency is a better word to use than resistance Philip Baird Shearer 00:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"The state of Pakistan, which refuses to allow US troops inside its territory, is a practical case in point." Pakistan does allow US troops inside its territory, see e.g. http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/04/28/pakistan.troops/

Another amateur effort brought to you by Wikipedia

Here's how the main body of the text now begins:

Rarely throughout history have equally matched opponents waged war upon each other. With the exceptional miscalculation that plunges the world into chaos, most polities and non-state actors behave like children and pick fights with those they assume cannot effectively fight back. Therefore, theoretically, a weaker party should relent to the the will of the stronger and the world would settle into a hierarchy with a cleary delineated pecking order. Unfortunately to the chagrin of many an economist, man is not a rational creature and fights even when he cannot possibly hope to win: Herat, the Alamo, la Hacienda Camarón, the Warsaw Ghetto, Berlin, Iwo Jima, Tora Bora, Fallujah. History is littered with such names.

Garbage. This article is desperately in need of inline citations and adult supervision. Sigh. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 19:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I have reverted it to an earlier version. But as you point out, the reverted version it does not have inline citations either --Philip Baird Shearer 20:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should specify for wikipedia what is garbage about the paragraph.

Anyone can find something to complain about when looking at anything. The complaint carries no value unless the person complaining can offer a constructive alternative. The words above are just more noise in an already noisy world.

North Korea's strategy?

I don't know if it's relevant, but North Korea in its standoff with South Korea and the US seems to have devoted considerable effort to minimizing US military advantages. As I understand it, they technically have the largest special forces in the world, elaborate underground tunnel systems, and there's a fair amount of espionage and commando activity into South Korea and even Japan. -- KarlHallowell 05:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Linkage to Total War

There is an aspect of asymmetric warfare that should be linked to Total War. Asymmetric warfare makes use of all available networks - political, economic, social and military. As a consequence, the line between civilian and military targets has blurred. At the same time, the exponential increase in the use of non-conventional troops to combat/respond to asymmetric threats has similarly made the distinction between civilian and military disappear.--Milbuff101 15:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Additions?

Here are a few issues I think should be covered in this article.

Types of Asymmetrical warfare "Guerrilla warfare can be classified into two main categories: urban guerrilla warfare and rural guerrilla warfare." I think this is incorrect, or at least a confusion.

The Urban and Rural breakdown, which is tied to the terrain (often called "difficult terrain" by scholars) isn't a breakdown at all really. I think that the territorial breakdown of this type of war is irrelavant, because the use of urban landscape still utilizes the same principles as rural landscape. Both are "difficult" in their own ways. Rural based on the geological layout (desert, mountain, jungle etc.), and Urban based on architectural and public support to hide their where-abouts. As well, so-called "rural guerilla's" still require outside (read:population) support for their supplies. Both rely on a means of supplying themselves and escaping during hit and run tactics, and so neither is very different. I think the more appropriate breakdown is this:

Asymmetric warfare can also be broken down into two other types of warfare: Ideological and Territorial. Often the two mix as well, with groups beginning with a territorial motivation and using it to promote a ideological/political shift, or vice-versa.

Territorial is often an uprising to fend off a foreign or precieved foreign power. It often involves the natives of one country against the army of another. This is a replacement for conventional warfare. The 2nd Boer war is an example of this type of asymmetic war.

The Ideological form is often a form of civil war, where the fight is against the government of the insurgents' own country. China's revolution is a perfect example of this.

Shift to Conventional Warfare Another issue I wish to see addressed is the shift that often occures to bring about conventional warfare. This is almost always neccessary for a geurilla force, and is what often causes the confusion about Vietnam. NOTE: Vietnam is only an asymmetrical war Pre-United States involvement. Once the battles began it became a conventional war, with armies. This is mentioned in the Tactical Relevance secion, and is misleading.

Asymmetrical refers not only to the superior numbers, but the tactics mainly. Asymmetical wars often become conventional wars as they grow in support and numbers. Asym. war is typified by its tactics, which are only useful given the conditions of smaller numbers and available difficult terrain. Larger numbers cannot utilise tactics which take advantage of the weaknesses of conventional armies (ie: their size and relative immobility), and so take on the tactics of conventional armies.

Counter-Insurgency Some mention of the tactics for counter-insurgency might be benificial.

--Andrew winter 20:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the more I look at it, the more I wonder whether this should be merged in some way with the Guerillia Warfare article. Since that's what this article has ended up talking about anyways. Asymmetrical war is the circumstance, guerillia war is the tactics. Can anyone think of an Asymmetrical war that was NOT a Guerilla war? --Andrew winter 21:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Charles Foley ideas "Strategic Assault Corps" published 1954 (See the section #Commandos higher up this talk page), incorporated ideas from the use of Commandos, Chindits and the particularly those of the SAS during World War II. He write much of the essay as a question and answer exercise. For example:

How would the Corps differ from the Commandos? Enormously, and the difference must be kept clear from the start. The merging of the Commandos into the Royal Marines acknowledged that their rôle is tactical: to provide the spearhead of conventional attack on enemy coastlines. They have their place of honour in the forefront of such landings, but strategic targets are outside their scope. Strategic assault troops, however, must be reserved for deep thrusts far behind the enemy lines; their training structure and character would be wasted if used for jabbing at tactical objectives.

Later in the same essay he goes on to say:

Nearer to the battle zone, shattering blows can be struck. Bridges, railways and tunnels suddenly blow up, signal and power lines go dead. With his plans in disarray the enemy is forced to squander forces on defensive precautions against an unknown, and thus conform his behaviour to our intentions. And then in widening circles, begin the kidnapping and seduction of enemy officers. Not only will the opposing leader have to double the guards on every battlement, but even in the council chamber (he had better scrutinise them frequently to make sure they are his men) while keeping a sharp eye on the loyalty of his chief lieutenants. ...the supreme aim of Strategic Assault Corps would be to intervene before the fatal order can be given, and every war-maker will know it. Even as he plots the hour of attack, he will be haunted by the dread of assassination.

See also William S. Lind and Fourth generation warfare which contains many similar ideas. (As can be seen by these two online articles 1989 and 2004 Lind's definition of what a 4GW is have modified over time particularly after 9/11). --Philip Baird Shearer 16:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice. I think then that the use of tactics used in Guerilla warfare should be highlighted, but the term should not used interchangably with assymetrical warfare. These tactics are used effectivly in this type of warfare, but the circumstances are not always the same. As in the above example, the tactics of terrain use, and targetting of lines of comm and supply are common btw the two. But Guerilla warfare is a result of circumstance, while Asymmetrical warfare is sometimes a tactical choice as in your example? --Andrewwinter 14:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a few minor wording changes to enact some of my above suggestions. As well I added the counter insurgency stuff to the Boer War section including a mention of blockhouses.

What remains on this page that requires the "factual dispute" disclaimer at the top?--Andrewwinter 15:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Another point regarding terrorism

The Commander of the USA Naval base at Guantanamo Bay regards terrorists as conducting "Asymetrical Warfare" against USA forces, a line no doubt echoed officaly by his superiors.

"Navy Rear Admiral Harry Harris, commander of Guantanamo, told a news conference the suicides were an act of warfare." "They are smart. They are creative, they are committed. They have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us," Harris said.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=106014

Matt, 11th Jun 2006, 0945

I have to admit that the first time I have ever heard of the term "asymmetrical warfare", was from the commander from Guantanamo Bay in 2006, in reference to the suicides of the camp detainees.

Steph, 9th Aug 2006

Suzanne Goldenberg and Hugh Muir 'Killing themselves was unnecessary. But it certainly is a good PR move' The Guardian June 12, 2006
- Zachary Katznelson A tunnel without end: The US version of the Guantánamo suicides is disgraceful. The cause of death was gross injustice The Guardian June 12, 2006. (Zachary Katznelson is senior counsel at Reprieve, which represents 36 Guantánamo Bay detainees)

--Philip Baird Shearer 11:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Definition at beginning of article

The definition at the beginning of the article doesn't really explain the topic well to people unfamiliar with the idea of asymmetric warfare. Right now it reads as follows:

"Asymmetric warfare describes the potential for an optimal interaction between the respective strengths and weaknessess of two belligerents"

I would like to change it to something like this:

"Asymmetric warfare describes a conflict between two entities of unequal size, in which the smaller entity may use unorthodox means to attack its larger opponent."

How does this sound? Shall I replace this sentence? Gary 17:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Slight Alteration to proposed definition

I like your definition much better, but the "smaller entity" might not necessarily be the side at the disadvantage? I.e., 139 British Infantry Vs. 4,000 Zulu Warriors. Size considered alone would say the British are at an obvious disadvantage, however once all factors are considered (Better weapons, tactics, defending a fortification) the size issue is not as important. There are other factors and to say this form of warfare is simply related to a smaller entity fighting a bigger entity would be misleading. A larger entity that finds itself outperformed by a smaller entity may still make use of asymmetrical tactics.

How about this: "Asymmetric warfare describes conflict between two entities of unequal capability, in which the more disadvantaged entity may use unorthodox means to attack, or defend itself from, its larger opponent."

Matt [12th Jun, 2006]

Sorry about the box How about this: "Asymmetric warfare describes conflict between two entities of unequal capability, in which the more disadvantaged entity may use unorthodox means to attack, or defend itself from, its larger opponent."

Matt [12th Jun, 2006]

Matt you can sign you entries with ~~~~ which will automagically be change into as time stamped signature by wikipedia software.

Or perhaps this: "Asymmetric warfare is a term used to describe a military conflict between two unequal parties, where the weaker uses unorthodox means of warfare against the stronger." Thomas Blomberg 09:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The parties do not have to be of differing strengths for "Asymmetric warfare" to exist. It may not be a strategic necessity (although it usually is), but a tactical decision, e.g. the development of the SAS in World War II. Or as the example in the article mentions, the result of strategic choices which result in a standoff as happened between the UK and France in the Napoleonic wars. But see the next paragraph I an not sure that the UK France stand off is an example of "Asymmetric warfare" but rather an asymmetric war.

IMHO "Asymmetric warfare" exists when one or both parties use methods of warfare against the other which fall outside the widely accepted military doctrines of conventional warfare at the time the conflict takes place. As the methods used by the British and the Zulus fell within accepted military doctrines of the time, that war an asymmetric war, but not "Asymmetric warfare". --Philip Baird Shearer 10:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Phillip, I think you're correct in your definition of terms here. The war may be one-sided without asymmetic warfare being used. The wording of the definition should reflect that.

"Asymmetric warfare is a term used to describe a military conflict between two unequal parties, where the weaker uses unorthodox means of warfare against the stronger." This is close, but I think it needs to be pointed out that the two parties are neither neccessarily weaker or stronger, just different. One party would be weaker IF it used conventional tactics. But it doesn't, and the tactics used often places it on equal, if not stronger footing than the conventional army.

Thus, terms like stronger and weaker don't apply directly, unless we're talking about a conventional situation. The tactics are based on numbers and size as well as technological and strategic strength and so the definitions should be as well. Maybe "of unequal conventional military strength"

"Asymmetric warfare is a term used to describe a military conflict between two forces of unequal conventional military strength, where the weaker army uses unorthodox means of warfare against the conventionally stronger to take advantage of relative strengths and weaknesses attributable to each force's relative size and strength compared to one another." --Andrewwinter 14:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting as this conversaton is. We are in danger of wandering into original research. I suggest that we do a search of the Internet and pull in some sources: Google ["Asymmetric warfare" -wikipedia] returns about 177,000 English pages for "Asymmetric warfare" -wikipedia

One of the URLs which is returned on the first page of the Google search is an article by Richard Norton-Taylor Asymmetric warfare The Guardian Wednesday October 3, 2001.

"The smaller power applies its strengths against the weaknesses of the larger power," Philip Wilkinson [then] of King's College, London. [now Associate Fellow, Chatham House]

Another interesting URL on the first google page is a US Army article The Asymmetric Warfare Group: Closing the Capability Gaps (April 2005) which includes this:

Using asymmetric tactics, adversaries attempt to exploit their ability to hide in plain sight and attack U.S. forces in ways that are unconventional, unexpected and that turn the U.S. Army's own operating techniques against itself. Examples of these vulnerabilities are readily apparent. The reliance on vehicle road movement creates many opportunities for roadside bombs, for instance. Attempting to avoid such insurgent tactics by ferrying troops via helicopter between bases creates alternate opportunities for attacks on aircraft. Consolidating soldier services in one location, like a large dining facility, enhances physical security but also presents unique target opportunities.

--Philip Baird Shearer 16:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Another defintion from the "Further reading" section of the article:

Asymmetric warfare includes "threats outside the range of conventional warfare and difficult to respond to in kind (e.g., a suicide bomber)" - Dictionary of Military Terms.

--Philip Baird Shearer 17:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So, if the two parties don't even have to be of unequal size, what is the difference between asymmetric warfare and unconventional warfare? Does perhaps the term "asymmetric" only mean that one of the opponents employ unconventional methods while the other stick to conventional? If so, we have a chance to create a very simple and easy to understand explanation of the term. Thomas Blomberg 17:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

asymmetric warfare seems to be military speak for "the other guy doesn't play fair" but is it just a term to describe a conflict with unequal parties and what would an outside commentator call it. Another question raises its head - when did the term first get used? If very recently then there is probably an older term for it.GraemeLeggett 19:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

/The U.S Dept of defense did studies of assymetric warfare in the 80's where the result of the study on to the full extent of an assymetric joint attack would be. The results were that; planes filled with fuel containers hitting strategic sites, poisoning of water supply system, placing of biological agents in large companies enviromental system, attack of power supply system, destruction of bridges and destruction of dams limiting movement and recuparation, snipers and bombers suppressing policing and recuparation efforts.

Its amazing how the Washington sniper, 9/11 attacks, Anthrax attack, power blackouts in New York, Flooding of new orleans all happen in such a short time similar to the study but not the same at all.

The military response to the attack of such a force which might not be commanded by its goverment could also see a continouation of assymetric warfare in a built up area, high population density, where building searches or hunts for the militants they would blow buildings, shoot anti-tank or fragmentation devices into buildings also employ snipers. Cause a high casaualty rate of soldeirs and civilians to an enemy who seem not to deserve the response or have an ability to withstand their "enemy". Tactictal aproach and movement and skills minimising loss not employed by soldiers could see a high attrition rate of their soldiers against a military insignificant enemy compared to the militaries history in full conventional warfare.

Israel war against Hezbollah in the 2006 conflict by the Israeli military using semi-unconventional tactics shows still their limitations in engaging in this type of warfare.

Studies show change in warfare is usualy never respected untill late and every now and thern a new form or wave of assymetric warfare occurs it either wins in a short space of time or it happens gradualy and solutions are implemented in time untill the cycle begins again. I believe were now more tharn halfway into our cycle. DGIJTM.

T.E. Lawrence's Principles of Insurgency

From the "Further reading" in the article:

It turns out that having a great technological capability and relying on it may be a disadvantage. I recently ran across T.E. Lawrence's Principles of Insurgency. Each is pungent and seemingly applicable to Iraq, especially the second and fourth ones:

A successful guerrilla movement must have an unassailable base.
The guerrilla must have a technologically sophisticated enemy.
The enemy must be sufficiently weak in numbers so as to be unable to occupy the disputed territory in depth with a system of interlocking fortified posts.
The guerrilla must have at least the passive support of the populace, if not its full involvement.
The irregular force must have the fundamental qualities of speed, endurance, presence, and logistical independence.
The irregular must be sufficiently advanced in weaponry to strike at the enemy's logistics and signals vulnerabilities.

On reading the rules, one can't help but wish someone in authority had studied them prior to the invasion decision." ( C. A. "Bert" Fowler Asymmetric Warfare: A Primer Continued page 6)

See also T.E. Lawrence and the Mind of an Insurgent by James J. Schneider, professor of military theory at the School of Advanced Military Studies, U.S. Command and Gen. Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Is it me, or is the intro paragraph lacking rather. Lacking content and readability mostly. GraemeLeggett 10:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What is this? As with other military jargon, "asymmetric warfare" is a subjective term to refer to violence conducted by a familiar military force under the auspices of familiar goals and priorities.

That is no good. I'm scrapping it. This is neither Jargon, nor subjective, but rather a definable term. This intro includes nothing to do with unequal strength, which is key to the topic. --Andrewwinter 17:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is strength key to the article? Asymmetric warfare has more to do with the tactics used than the strength of the combatants. In most cases there is a difference in strength, but it's not definitionally part of asymmetric warfare. Nazi Germany engaged in asymmetric warfare on a massive scale, but not out of a sense of weakness. The same can be said of the USSR in WWII.

Neutrality Issues

HEY! The Iraq section was completely biased, and un-neutral, so I gave it more balance and factual accuracy 199.120.31.20 12:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to try and deal with some of these issues.

I've dealt with one neutrality issue. The section on Israel/Palestine refered only to the fact that the Palestinians don't abide by the Geneva Conventions. In fact, both sides have violeted it. Palestinians involve civilians by attacking them physically, while Israeli forces attack civilians both physically and in dignity, etc. As well, Israel violates some of the rules laid down regarding Occupied territories in Article IV. Both are banned under Article IV, Protocol 1 and 2.

Anyone else wanting to point some out?

--Andrewwinter 16:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be very little recent discussion about neutrality and what there is seems to be people correct the problems so unless anyone can point out some major POV problems I will remove the tag from the article in a couple of days.--Goatan 14:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO it tries too much to focus on insurgency-type actions. Also, it should point out the disparity in forces and/or objectives isn't necessarily based on size. One side with overwhelming naval force (e.g. Britain) would be in an asymmetric condition with someone with land and air assets (e.g. Argentina)in the Falklands war. Assets affect tactics. An asymmetric condition exists when force, tactics, or objectives are not give and take. Insurgency actions are fish in a barrel, as in numbers versus firepower. Pjvolk66 04:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the section on Israel/Palestine is biased towards the Israeli point of view. By construting Israeli settlements on Palestinian land, Israel is in violation of Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which prohibit the occupying power from transfering its own civilians to occupied territory. This is not disputed by the UN or the international community. In addition, Israel is in violation of UN resolution 242, the 2002 UN , on Torture, as well as other well documented human rights abuses. To not mention these at all and to just point the finger at the Palestinians for violating international law does a great disservice to this article and makes it have a very biased POV. I believe wikipedia can rise above the massive POV of the U.S. media which refuses to criticize Israel for any reason whatsoever. We need more people to look at this article and to stop reverting it to an Israeli/American POV. Picassorock 16:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like someone to explain to me exactly what constitutes "Palestinian Land." The land of Palestine was never ruled by a sovereign group of self-described "palestinians." It had been conquered dozens of times in the past by the caananites, the persians, the romans, the byzantines, the crusaders, the mamluks, the ottomans, the british, and many others... see: History of Palestine During the formation of Israel, the zionists actually bought most of the land from the palestinians and worked together with them on communal farming projects and other such noble endeavors. The way I see it is that Israel has as much of a right to their land as anyone ever did, their only problem is that because of the constant attacks against them, and especially the Six Day War, they were forced to become quite militaristic and this has negative consequences for the Palestinians. But the terrorists who continue to provoke Israel and fire hundreds of rockets are certainly not helping matters. Imagine if someone fired hundreds of rockets at the United States, what consequences would there be for the perpetrators. I am actually impressed with the restraint and commitment to peace that Israel has shown.

Picassorock is referring here to the Occupied territories resulting from the Six Day War, often referred to as the Palistinian Territories. Without politicizing this too much, it should be noted that the insurgency is a response to occupation not the other way around. This should and can be highlighted in this reference to the conflict while maintaining an unbaised viewpoint. I have made some attemts to remove the controvertial material, relegating discussion of the moral/subjective aspects of the conflict to other articles. --Andrewwinter 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hannibal? David and Goliath are Asymmetric warfare? dubious...

The article gives the dubious example of Hannibal as an example of "Asymmetric" warfare. Quote: Hannibal attacked Roman forces on the Italian peninsula with a small military force, bolstered by loose alliances. He successfully used raids and threats to survive a Roman force that at times consisted of as many as 23 Legions,..

This is plain misleading. Hannibal tackled Rome with a conventional army of veterans battle hardened from decades of service in Spain, along with thousands of Gallic allies. His greatest victories and major impact was not raids and skirmishes, but full scale battle- mostly notable one of the greatest victories of all time that saw around 50,000 Romans dead, and further victories at the Trebia, Lake Trasmeine, and other place. Did he raid and skirmish? Of course- all armies of the time did that including the Romans. Raiding, skirmishing, aand screening of a main force is nothing new and is still standard military procedure today in conventional armies. The example of Hannibal used is both inaccurate and misleading.

As for David and Goliath, this was a standard contest of champions, typically used in ancient times, either as a prelude to the main battle or as a proxy for battle. To consider this an "example" of "asymmetric" warfare borders on incoherence.

I can agree with these points. The David and Goliath examples are very misleading, as David at no point utilized any tactics associated with Assymetrical warfare. However, the article does not refer to this contest as an example of Assymetrical Warfare, rather "the inspiration for the triumph of the weak and the oppressed over the strong and the mighty" Contest of Champions could indeed be considered conventional for the time period. Maybe a mention that this is NOT an example, but an inspiration, is required. I will add this.

And considering the information regarding Hannibal, I would be willing to remove it. Feel free to do so.--Andrewwinter 18:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of you I have removed both items. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Are there any other neutrality issues we need to address? I would love to see that little box at the top disappear. I should also look into working on the citations throughout the text to also remove the "not verified" box as well. --Andrewwinter 15:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

When did the bible become a document of history facts? While the basis of Christian religions, it does not stand up to exigetical scrutiny. Opinions as to whether or not it presents fact or fable are just that, opinions. Religion may be defined here but I fail to see its relavence for a definition. -- Bvi2002 12:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Partisan"

To anyone with a working knowledge of Latin, Parti-Saan as the etymological origins of the word partisan seem a bit suspect. If anything, it comes from pars-partes, or "part". Political "party" came out of it. Personally I don't care for the article, but that section as an opener just looks a little amateurish, especially if it's not cited.

Israel

The Israel/Palestine section is almost entirely POV and if you were to remove the POV parts the remainder no longer makes any sense. Rewrite or delete? As it is, it reads like a Hasbara release. 81.153.249.207 04:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Elmo

Ah, sorry. tired eyes skimmed over previous mention of this issue. 81.153.249.207 04:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Elmo

Well, somebody changed it to something even more biased in the Palestinian direction, so I switched it back. I then tried to make some changes to make it more neutral, but it is still lacking. Sorry. Hughbristic 12:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)hughbristic

Chinese forces in Korea

The assumption that the Chinese numerically overwhelmed the U.S in the korean war is a comon mistake that should be corrected.The Chinese had nearly the same(maybe fewer) combatants that the americans,but the U.S lines where overextended and the chinese made good use of infiltration tactics that force the U.S to redeploy.Eventually the U.S manage to make a compact line of defense and a shorter line of supplies making it harder for the chinese to keep advancing whit their lack of air support.--Andres rojas22 18:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this particular conflict is referenced on a page about Asymmetric Warfare. Definitions of AW typically entail a significant disproportion in relative power (see Arreguin-Toft, Ivan, How the Weak Win Wars) on the order of 10 times or more. Furthermore, unconventional strategy, tactics, command structure, and so on are generally the norm for the minority force in AW. Surely the Korean War was primarily a conventional conflict: two conventional forces using primarily conventional tactics.

Even Agincourt is a stretch in my opinion. Again, two conventional forces meeting on a conventional battleground. Exploitation of new technology is not, IMHO, in and of itself evidence of an asymmetric conflict. Perhaps if the longbowmen had been deployed in small mobile units that utilized terrain and natural cover to dispatch of the French in multiple harrassing actions, followed by quick withdrawals before the French could engage them. In other words: new technology coupled with unconventional tactics makes for an asymmetric conflict. Cheers, --Psarj 01:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Victory

In asymmetric war, how do you know when you have won? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.0.101.131 (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

For the minority force, the victory condition is clear: withdrawal of the majority force from the conflict. Victory condition for the majority force is often undefinable and unachievable. It is rarely marked by a formal "event" such as a surrender or withdrawal from the field as in a conventional conflict. --Psarj 01:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Asymmetry and Asymmetric Warfare

Asymmetry and Asymmetric warfare We need linkage eg via reference to and assimilation of material from[[4]]. Otherwise this remains a simplistic analysis with insufficient theoretical basis and understanding. 85.210.255.81 10:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.