Raashid Wali Janjua
He plays a game with which I am not familiar (Bobby Jones) This quote by Booby Jones about Jack Nicklaus’ Golf skills encapsulates the whole philosophy of Asymmetric warfare. Several writers nowadays are confusing the terms like fourth, fifth and hybrid Warfare. The United States Joint Forces Command defines a hybrid threat as, any adversary that simultaneously and adaptively employs a tailored mix of conventional, irregular, terrorism and criminal means or activities in the operational battle space. Rather than a single entity, a hybrid threat or challenger may be a combination of state and non-state actors. As per European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats, hybrid threats are methods and activities that are targeted towards vulnerabilities of the opponent where the range of methods and activities is wide including terrorism, lawfare, political subversion and media manipulation.
The fourth generation warfare is defined as an irregular warfare waged by non state actors against nation states employing irregular tactics. The fifth generation warfare is based on space age technologies and artificial intelligence employing hi tech weaponry, robotics and unmanned information technology enabled platforms. The fourth generation and hybrid warfare is of essence the same. The Chinese called that the “Unrestricted Warfare” which sometimes is coterminous with the non linear warfare. The hybrid or the unrestricted warfare employs all elements of a nation’s power potential to leverage an advantage upon a truculent adversary. Dislocation of an enemy’s conventional or unconventional force balance to uncover the vulnerability to be attacked is the first logical step followed by an attack on enemy’s center of gravity in the repertoires of two adversaries’ Grand Strategy.
The soul of all these non-linear strategies and tactics is the Asymmetric Warfare. It is a kind of warfare where a weaker adversary uses tactics, stratagems, and weapon systems that render a stronger adversary’s strengths infructuous. Martin Van Creveld called the modern warfare as the province of “unarmed yet unharmed adversary” that uses the very strength of a stronger adversary as its weakness. The decimation of three Roman legions led by Publius Quinctilius Varus in 6 AD at the Teutoburg forest by a Germanic tribes’ leader Arminius is a classic example of Asymmetric Warfare. Three Roman legions were completely destroyed through an ambush by the lightly armed yet agile Germanic troops who took full advantage of the lack of maneuverability of heavily armed Roman legions in the wooded territory. Another example is the Ali versus George Foreman world heavy weight bout in Congo where Ali used the ropes in ring to absorb the punches.
The mad fury of Foreman’s punches was spent like a water current crashing against the rocks. As Foreman tired himself out Ali counter attacked knocking him out. Hybrid Warfare is in fact an “Asymmetric War” that is waged by a state or a non-state actor against a state or a non-state actor. Its scope therefore is limitless and unbounded. When the Chinese use this term they mean use of all elements of a nation’s power potential especially the ones with a comparative advantage over the adversary to render the strengths of an adversary useless. The guerillas using hit and run tactics, the terrorists resorting to terrorism, the intelligence agencies subverting the loyalties and fomenting unrest amongst rivals’ social units, and the armies resorting to low tech weaponry to render the cyber war capabilities of adversaries irrelevant are all examples of Asymmetric Warfare. After the nuclear revolution according to Lawrence Freedman and Martin Van Creveld the non -Trinitarian was the new normal.
The Clausewitzean trinity of government, people and the army was replaced by a conflict featuring people and governments as conventional armies receded in background because of the increased irrelevance of the conventional forces due to nuclear balance of terror. In this new warfare system the asymmetric warriors can operate from the anonymity of their hideouts using cyber as well as information war tools. All over the world in areas covered by the nuclear umbrella the asymmetric warfare employing a hybrid of conventional, sub conventional and unconventional threats has become the norm. Weapons of mass destruction have assumed the status of deux ex machina in contemporary warfare. These have given weak states and non-state actors a hitherto unknown power to inflict grievous damage on stronger adversaries.
The forms of asymmetry include asymmetry of operational thoughts, technology, will and organization. Out of the three forms mentioned above the asymmetry of the will is the most important aspect. In Afghanistan for example the Americans despite obtaining the clear edge in technology and operational thoughts lost badly on the will power front. A badly organized and poorly equipped Afghan Taliban led indigenous resistance is apparently getting the better of the US war machine due to a wide gulf between the will of the Americans and the Taliban. According to the theory propounded by TV. Paul the weak states initiate asymmetric conflicts against superior adversaries based upon four factors, i.e., strategic calculations of cost/benefit, alliance relationship with global powers, acquisition of offensive weapons and domestic political power changes
Egypt’s attack against Israel in 1973 and Pakistan’s Operation Gibraltar in 1965 can be included in the asymmetric war category wherein Egypt and Pakistan having acquired modern weaponry and international support successfully prosecuted asymmetric wars. The lesson for Pakistan to heed is to to enhance its asymmetric warfare capacity to succeed whenever the opportunity meets preparation in future.
— The writer, a Retired Brig, is a PhD scholar at NUST, Islamabad.
