Talk:Asymmetric warfare/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Inconsistency in the article: terrorism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Terrorism]] 

message: ::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)
thread_title: Correction

message: 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)
thread_title: War by Proxy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  British [[Special Operations Executive|SOE]] and American [[Office of Strategic Services|OSS]] 

message: 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! 
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)
thread_title:  IRA 

message: : I posted this question on 25 May 2004 does any one know? Philip Baird Shearer 10:56, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What is a fourth generation war? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Commando|Commandos]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Urban Warfare 

message: 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)
thread_title: Large rearrangement

message: 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)
thread_title:  How are we looking? 

message: 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,  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)
thread_title: Battle of Agincourt

message: 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)
thread_title: Boer War

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another amateur effort brought to you by Wikipedia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  North Korea's strategy? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Linkage to Total War 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another point regarding terrorism 

message: 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)
thread_title: T.E. Lawrence's Principles of Insurgency

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Hannibal? David and Goliath are Asymmetric warfare? dubious...

message: 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)
replies: text: Ah, sorry. tired eyes skimmed over previous mention of this issue. 81.153.249.207 04:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Israel 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Victory 

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