Sunday, October 21, 2001

How we will fight an Asymmetric War Here is a synopsis of the way we will probably fight this war.  It's ugly and not what I would propose.  However, it's the way the US is quickly moving.  In the end, we will look like Israel than the US of a year ago, which sucks.  1) Crush civil liberties.  The USA Act is an example of the elimination of privacy for electronic communications.   The FBI, CIA, and other law enforcement agencies are already operating without constraint in regards to search and seizure.  Expect this to get worse.  The most disturbing aspect of these new powers is that there isn't a point in the future anyone can point to when they will be lifted.   2)  Build up special ops and "dirty" units.  Funding for these units will double in the next two years.  The CIA in five years will be more like the OSS of WWII or the Mossad than the relatively vanilla institution it is today.  These units will require a different type of person than those currently employed at the CIA.  These units will operate without restriction both outside and within US borders.  Many will run amuck. 3) Assassinate, assassinate, assassinate.  The nature of this new type of war will focus on the termination of key individuals.  Targets will go beyond specific terrorists to include the leaders of states that promote terrorism.  It is accepted wisdom that the West cannot win a low intensity conflict and would fail at nation building.  Instead, the West will focus on changing the psychology of key individuals.  Assassinations on the leaders of these states will range from simple commando raids and CIA funded events to full invasions, all with a common goal:  to eliminate leaders that allow terrorism to flourish unmolested.  No territory will be held.  Nation building will be limited to changing behavior.  Comply or die. This war will last for years if not decades and will change our lives for the worse.  Who would have thought a year ago that the US was in a relative time of innocence.  We all felt so jaded.  There are alternatives to the policy I outlined above.  I hope the people in power have enough vision to grasp the alternatives, but I am doubtful.  5:02:09 PM    Comment_ Trackback []

The rise of Asymmetric Warfare Over the past 50 years, modern states have failed to win low intensity conflicts (LICs).  The record of failure is vast:  France in Vietnam,  Vietnam in Cambodia,  Russia in Afghanistan, and Israel in Lebanon.  All of these conflicts have resulted in a huge loss of life (In Afghanistan, Russia lost 30 k soldiers while the Afghans lost 2 m), massive economic costs (the US war in Vietnam costs $1 trillion in 2001 dollars), and unacceptable  political instability.  In response to this failure, modern states have opted to avoid LICs and have retreated into isolation.  That isolation was ended on 9-11 with the rise of Asymmetrical warfare.  This style of warfare pits a modern state against a group of loosely aligned  groups.  These groups are different than the guerilla fighters we faced previously.  They differ in the following ways: 1) They are willing to bring the conflict to us.  Additionally, the infrastructure of the modern state both enables and increases the lethality of these attacks (Our mail and transportation systems were used in the most recent attacks).  Isolation is not an option. 2) They operate transnationally.  Asymmetric warrior groups recruit, train, and stage attacks across the globe.  There isn't a center of gravity that we can retaliate against.  3) The goals of Asymmetric groups are confused and impossible to implement.  Negotiation is not an option.  How do we fight and win an Asymmetric war given the factors above?  How can we hope to win given our track record in the last half century of losses in low intensity conflicts?  The answer isn't appetizing.  I will post some ideas on a solution later. >>>> K-Logs (Weblogs for Knowledge Management and Collaboration) is 87 members and growing.  1:56:43 PM    Comment_ Trackback []