Asymetrical Warfare
December 5, 2013
Unconventional & Asymmetrical Warfare
Military Strategy
Unconventional & Asymmetrical Warfare
In On War, Carl von Clausewitz states, “Every age has its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.” It can be argued that the end of the Cold War reduced the world’s superpowers from two to one, leaving the US without any actual military competition. However, this does not mean the safety of the US is without threats. The President addressed this concern to a graduation class at West Point:
“This is another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin – war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of by combat; by infiltration, instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him…It preys on economic unrest and ethic conflicts. It requires in those situations where we must counter it, and these are the kinds of challenges that will be before us in the next decade if freedom is to be saved, a whole new kind of strategy, a wholly different kind of force, and therefore a new and wholly different kind of military training.”
As accurate as it is, it was surprisingly addressed by President John F. Kennedy for the 1962 West Point Class, who called for the evolution of US bureaucracy and policy to conform the type of warfare that is being fought today.
Currently the United States has no identified conventional war-engaging peer as we did during the Cold War and Vietnam. Therefore, the absence of competitors makes the world more unstable and difficult to anticipate. The expectations as the hegemony while we engage in humanitarian efforts and peacekeeping resulting to extensive global presence makes the United States a very inviting target. Assuming a following of similar trends, because the United States is uniquely powerful in terms
Unconventional & Asymmetrical Warfare
Military Strategy
Unconventional & Asymmetrical Warfare
In On War, Carl von Clausewitz states, “Every age has its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.” It can be argued that the end of the Cold War reduced the world’s superpowers from two to one, leaving the US without any actual military competition. However, this does not mean the safety of the US is without threats. The President addressed this concern to a graduation class at West Point:
“This is another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin – war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of by combat; by infiltration, instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him…It preys on economic unrest and ethic conflicts. It requires in those situations where we must counter it, and these are the kinds of challenges that will be before us in the next decade if freedom is to be saved, a whole new kind of strategy, a wholly different kind of force, and therefore a new and wholly different kind of military training.”
As accurate as it is, it was surprisingly addressed by President John F. Kennedy for the 1962 West Point Class, who called for the evolution of US bureaucracy and policy to conform the type of warfare that is being fought today.
Currently the United States has no identified conventional war-engaging peer as we did during the Cold War and Vietnam. Therefore, the absence of competitors makes the world more unstable and difficult to anticipate. The expectations as the hegemony while we engage in humanitarian efforts and peacekeeping resulting to extensive global presence makes the United States a very inviting target. Assuming a following of similar trends, because the United States is uniquely powerful in terms