"The Folly of 'Asymmetric War' " is the title

**Ken White** · 09-19-2008

though I'm not at all sure what relevance it has to anything other than an academic discussion.

As Mark said in his review of the Mazarr article; "The history of all warfare is of the protagonist’s quest to gain an asymmetric advantage over the enemy." Fighting 'symmetrically' is not smart if it can in any way be avoided...

**Bill Moore** · 09-20-2008

Sounds like Dr. McCormick is referring more to comparative advantage versus asymmetry. I have not yet seen a definitive definition of asymmetrical warfare or 4GW etc., but both are loose concepts at best. However, normally asymmetry is not defined as one side having a decisive asymmetric advantage over another, but rather the use of tactics that are not vulnerable to your foe's strengths. Symmetrical on the other hand, both sides fight each other with the same weapons, same type of forces, etc., you bring your sword and I'll bring mine, see you in the parking lot and we'll fight using the same rule book.

I don't like the term asymmetrical, but admit it can be useful at times. I think asymmetrical could refer to a number of situations:

One side must follow the land of law warfare and the other doesn't.

Related to this one side must wear a uniform and attempt to minimize damage to non-combats, while the other rejoices in collateral damage.

One side must maintain national and international will to stay in the fight, while the other only needs to motivate a select ethnic group (as one example).

Guerrilla tactics (hit and run, IEDs, sniper attacks, propaganda, terrorize civilians, etc.) versus maneuver and static security forces.

One side can target state level infrastructure (9/11 attacks, Madrid train bombing, London bombings) and have telling effect on the economy and political system, while the other side punches at air and successes are harder to exploit.

This is something we all understand this, do we need to restructure the military to fight this threat? I think that is the argument Dr Mazzar made in his article, and while I disagree with many of his points, I think some are spot on. We can't afford to lose our asymmetrical advantage in conventional combat, and at the same time we have other security challenges we must face.

Not so sure I agree with phrase, "The Folly of False Dilemmas", they are dilemmas for decision makers, especially when it comes to the allocation of resources.