Check out our new design. Click here to return to old version

Asymmetrical Warfare

Asymmetrical warfare is a concept that involves the conflicts between nations or groups that have military abilities and policies that contradict. This term essentially applied to refer to disputes between countries whose military power varies noticeably. The September 11 terror attacks in the United States and the war in Afghanistan are one of the cases that can be referred to as instances of asymmetrical warfare. Asymmetrical warfare implies circumstances whereby the enemy force applies methods and criteria such as terrorism, attacks by means of strong and dangerous weapons. There is a strong link between asymmetrical warfare and terrorism from the military point of view.

There are two diverse viewpoints on the connection in the middle of asymmetric warfare and terrorism. In the contemporary background, asymmetric warfare is progressively well thought-out as a constituent of fourth generation warfare. When this particular warfare gets accomplished outside the laws of war, it is regularly demarcated as terrorism, nonetheless, seldom by its practitioners and its groups. The second view is that asymmetric warfare fails to concur with terrorism. For instance, in an asymmetric warfare conflict, the side that is dominant is likely to blame the weaker side of being terrorists or pillagers (Anthony, 2006). Asymmetric warfare is known as terrorism from the side of people who wish to abuse the negative implications of the world and bring the political objectives of the weaker opponents into question.

The 9/11 brought about an international dimension to terrorism as it is clear that the enemy applies tactics that are different from such as ones applied in considerable wars such as the First and the Second World Wars. Enemies no longer apply the traditional warfare but the more advanced asymmetrical warfare. Generally, the concept of asymmetrical warfare entails a situation whereby one exploits the enemy’s strengths while still attacking the weaknesses at the same time. It involves minimal military contact thus extremely diverse from concepts such as the cold war (Roger, 2003).