Asymetric Warfare

I'm not sure if this topic has been written about here in this forum, but I'll give my 2 cent opinion on Asymetric Warfare, as this subject deals with many 'events' going on in the war in Iraq and elsewhere in the world.

What is Asymetric Warfare? By my opinion and analysis, it is plain and simple "DIRTY WARFARE" this means for example that (for instance) the U.S. Special Forces Kill their own soldiers, or instigate a bloodbath in the local population their fighting against, in order to gain the upper-hand, this does'nt always work the way they plan obviously,(Iraq.) I believe also that Asymetric Warfare was used to bring America into Iraq. (meaning the (9-11 horror was a military "invention".) here's a link to the definition below.

en.wikipedia.org...

Sung-Su might be misspelled, inventor of Asymetric Warfare.

www.marxists.org...

The U.S. has used this type of warfare against the third world for at least fifty years, at least 15 nations are curently using this against the U.S. now.
www.youtube.com...


Here is some links that show how the "third world" is possibly going to defeat the U.S. in a bloody third world war. (Asymetric Warfare)
atimes.com...

www.atimes.com...

www.atimes.com...

atimes.com...

If you wish to learn more just google Guerrilla Warfare, although Guerrilla warfare should not be confused with Asymetric Warfare, (almost the same.)

I think you've completely misunderstood the concept of asymmetric warfare.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Asymmetric warfare is a term that describes a military situation in which two belligerents of unequal power or capacity of action, interact and take advantage of the strengths and weaknesses of themselves and their enemies. This interaction often involves strategies and tactics outside the bounds of conventional warfare."

It has nothing to do with one side killing it's own and blaming it on somebody else.

As far as this notion-

"What is Asymetric Warfare? By my opinion and analysis, it is plain and simple "DIRTY WARFARE" this means for example that (for instance) the U.S. Special Forces Kill their own soldiers, or instigate a bloodbath in the local population their fighting against, in order to gain the upper-hand, this does'nt always work the way they plan obviously,(Iraq.) I believe also that Asymetric Warfare was used to bring America into Iraq. (meaning the (9-11 horror was a military "invention".) here's a link to the definition below. "

I'm gonna have to call BS on SF killing friendlies as a ruse. Let's just say from my line of work, I know better, and take exception to that accusation.
As for the military being responsible for 9/11, that's another BS notion.

Ivanterrible, I understand where you are coming from but I do not think you fully grasp the methodology of waging war, as described by Sun Tzu.

This is battle or war fighting at possibly at Company, Battalion or at best, Brigade level. It is not Strategic. If you look at the 'Rules For Ranging' as described by Col Rogers, you will see many similarities. I suspect both Rogers and Berdan [Sharpshooters] had read and assimilated Sun Tzu's doctrine for their own purposes.

Your links imply, the waging of war against the US and its geo-political and financial assets which are at the Strategic level. This is a Political strategy that has far reaching implications.

The type of warfare you describe in Iraq is again, IMO, nothing more than COIN operations at Brigade or Battalion level.

Like so many other posters in the pages who fall in to the same trap, you assume, rightly or wrongly, that coalition SF or some type of keeny-meeny units are out there killing and maiming friendly forces in an effort to foster deeper and far reaching bigotry and hostilities between
both the warring factions and coalition forces. This is simply not the case.

Counter Insurgency [COIN] operations usually start with hearts and minds, something I have been advocating from the beginning of the occupation in Iraq.

By denying the enemy combatants popular support (by winning hearts and minds) you deprive the enemy of their powerbase and, as their power begins to wane, you then mount conventional operations against them, wherever and whenever they appear.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
>>>I think you've completely misunderstood the concept of asymmetric warfare.>I'm gonna have to call BS on SF killing friendlies as a ruse. Let's just say from my line of work, I know better, and take exception to that accusation.
As for the military being responsible for 9/11, that's another BS notion.

Originally posted by fritz
>>>Ivanterrible, I understand where you are coming from but I do not think you fully grasp the methodology of waging war, as described by Sun Tzu.>Like so many other posters in the pages who fall in to the same trap, you assume, rightly or wrongly, that coalition SF or some type of keeny-meeny units are out there killing and maiming friendly forces in an effort to foster deeper and far reaching bigotry and hostilities between
both the warring factions and coalition forces. This is simply not the case.

Counter Insurgency [COIN] operations usually start with hearts and minds, something I have been advocating from the beginning of the occupation in Iraq.

Ivanterrible is spot on, no one can match the US in conventional warfare therefore most of it's enemies undertake asymetric warfare, or unconventional warfare. Terrorists in Iraq use road side bombs to expose America's weaknesses. There's a book written by two Chinese generals called "Unrestricted Warfare" which details ways China can take down America unconventionally (getting terrorists to crash a plane into the WTC was mentioned).

I never said or mentioned CHINA was responsible for 9-11, If you HAVE INFO TO present on that subject please present it here.


My point is the U.S. covert operation units are responsible for 9-11. and don't ever, accuse me of WAR MONGERING!!! I'm simply laying out the facts of DIRTY WARFARE!

Ivanterrible, I agree with you. I did not say otherwise. BUT and it is a very big but, the only way for the US led Coalition forces to 'win' in Iraq, is by winning the hearts and minds of the populace.

I am not saying for one moment, that there should not be any military action against the so called insurgents, foreign mercenaries or ex Iraqi military. Quite the opposite. Indeed where enemy forces are met, they should be destroyed by using every type of weaponry in the arsenal. In that scenario alone, there is a justifiable case for using superior firepower.

What I simply cannot accept is your belief that there are friendly forces out there who are systematically targetting other friendly forces.

It would not be tolerated by anybody in the chain of command. From the highest general to the lowest crow or grunt in a fireteam. It just would not happen.

There are far too many variables and somebody, somewhere would talk. Perhaps not in theatre, but when safely back home, who is to stop that person or persons from talking.

From what you are saying, American soldiers or SF personnel are murdering fellow Americans.

With all due respect Ivanterrible, where is the proof? If this is happening, you have a duty to bring the perpetrators to justice.

fritz do you reckon the hearts and minds approach is being used effectivly right now in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

I agree with you thou that the best approach is to meet a hard force with a soft force, so to speak.

Now this definition of asymetric warfare is priceless.

Triple suicide at Guantanamo camp

I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of warfare waged against us.

Rear Adm Harry Harris
Camp commander

Looks like everything is warfare in the eyes of a soldier.

Originally posted by Pendu
fritz do you reckon the hearts and minds approach is being used effectivly right now in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

I agree with you thou that the best approach is to meet a hard force with a soft force, so to speak.

To a certain extent I do. I know beyond a shaddow of doubt the guys from the 6th Rifles who are attached to 45 Commando are actively engaged in hearts and minds to good effect. They have just finished re-building and painting a school - all out of their wages. [You don't see that on the news or in the papers!]

For example, if I were to tell you that the kids used to tie string round baby turtles' necks then whirl them around their heads because the turtles made a whistling sound, would you believe that? That is what things are really like for them.

Last Xmas, we bagged up loads of goodies for the kiddies who ek an existence out in Helmand Province, especially around Camp Bastion. To us, it was just some old crap that was no longer used and destined for the dustbin.

Now, the kiddies play with shed loads of toys and simple jigsaw puzzles, games and even things like battered old spinning tops loads of cuddly toys.

One of my mates was telling me that when they dished out all the toys to the kids, they just sat and stared at them and didn't have a clue! The guys had to show them how to play with them and have a good time.

So yes my friend, I think hearts and minds should be a top priority but when the situation warrants it, the mailled fist should encompass the kid gloves!

Originally posted by yanchek
Looks like everything is warfare in the eyes of a soldier.

No, it's just that some people are able to notice the military aspect and tactic in these "suicides".

Commander-in-Chief


My opinion is in order to save this country from imminent destruction the Constitution needs to be Amended, and fast! The President has ordered the destruction of Iran, only this will backfire on the idiots who run this country,Look at the Collossal Disaster in Iraq, and you so- called Military Geniuses think that Iran will be a "Walk in the Park" what a joke!

The Constitution is flawed in that the Presidency has been given AUTHORITY alone to wage and conduct warfare, this will be the downfall of the U.S. if We the People don't wake up soon enough to stop this insanity.

My opinion is that the Commander-in-Chief position should be a ELECTED position of a well qualified Military General, and not the President, I realize that amending the Constitution is impossible! but I think we need to do it fast before this IDIOT G.W. BUSH destroys this nation's Military.

Look at the flaw in the Founding Fathers design of giving the President Commander-in-Chief of all American Armed Forces. A flaw because a Idiot like Bush comes along (Hillary is next) this is too much power for people without Military Experience in Combat. I'm not sure this country can survive the last years of this buffoon in power.


My opinion is the Commander-in-Chief should be a Elected position, specifically within the MIlitary, and responible for all WAR planning and specifics. the current system will bring us a Mad-Dictator wannabee in the near future,(Martial-Law.)

Article 2 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the President too much power!

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

Let's see here, As history as proven, ISRAEL will be behind a False-Flag operation again to get America to fight it's wars, How Convenient!! (thousands of dead Naval-Seaman.)

judicial-inc.biz...

Bush may be stupid, but his cabal are smart... they are the type of people who would allow 9/11 to happen inorder to create the instabilibly amoungst the american people, take away some freedoms and attack Afgantistan and then Iraq, even when the main culprits were the terrorist in Afgantistan and not Iraq.

Wars that are just, tend to create peace and stability later on, wars based on lies, reap what their sow. I hope...

I'm not going to try to argue over what folks opinions are, that have been expressed. What I will say is that the term Asymmetric warfare hasn't been used correctly yet in this thread. I'll break it down-

You have 2 opposing forces. One of these has significant numerical advantages, and in firepower, over the other. The smaller force realizing that they can't go head to head, has to fight the larger force on their terms, which are most advantageous to them. This is where guerilla tactics come to play -

en.wikipedia.org...


Asymmetric warfare by definition means that one force is greatly different in size/capability to another. It has nothing to do with "dirty tricks." What it doesn't mean, is attacking yourself, false flag, etc...

Originally posted by Cthulwho
There's a book written by two Chinese generals called "Unrestricted Warfare" which details ways China can take down America unconventionally (getting terrorists to crash a plane into the WTC was mentioned).

I'm gonna have to call the BS detector on this little snippet. Please provide documentation to back up your claim of China in some manner sponsering the 9/11 attacks.

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by Cthulwho
There's a book written by two Chinese generals called "Unrestricted Warfare" which details ways China can take down America unconventionally (getting terrorists to crash a plane into the WTC was mentioned).

I'm gonna have to call the BS detector on this little snippet. Please provide documentation to back up your claim of China in some manner sponsering the 9/11 attacks.

That document does'nt say China would utilize terrorist's to destroy the WTC, however it does say China would utilize Asymetric Warfare to destroy America, this means that China can utilize foreign Mercs to do their dirty work.

Again, in the world of Asymetric Warfare Nothing is Sacred! Everything a nation can do to survive, it will do.

www.fas.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 27-2-2007 by ivanterrible]

Originally posted by BlueRaja
I'm not going to try to argue over what folks opinions are, that have been expressed. What I will say is that the term Asymmetric warfare hasn't been used correctly yet in this thread. I'll break it down-

You have 2 opposing forces. One of these has significant numerical advantages, and in firepower, over the other. The smaller force realizing that they can't go head to head, has to fight the larger force on their terms, which are most advantageous to them. This is where guerilla tactics come to play -

en.wikipedia.org...


Asymmetric warfare by definition means that one force is greatly different in size/capability to another. It has nothing to do with "dirty tricks." What it doesn't mean, is attacking yourself, false flag, etc...

Your 'definition' of Asymetric Warfare is noted, I think your 'containing' the meaning and intent of this type of warfare though. Again, you have to put your mind "out of the box" think in terms of survivability, China and the third world have figured out how to destroy America.

Of course your definition has meaning, however your leaving many 'possibilties' out of the equation, just because you say attacking yourself, and false-flags are out of the question, does'nt make it so.


I would suggest you read many books out on the open market from Special-Forces people, many of the allegations I make come from their own words (not-mine.) It's a well known fact that during the Vietnam War, many Black-Ops were conducted against U.S. forces, now the question is Are these "unsavory forces" mercenaries, or CIA, who knows?

The fact of the matter is Black-Ops, Pysch-Ops, ect, these types of classified operations are real, and they are utilized by the American Armed Forces. I know it's hard to believe that the U.S. military would do such things, but hey, this is a Dog-eat-Dog world. Nothing is Sacred!

P.S. Why do you think there is a "Black-Budget?" unseen from Congress?

Thank you Ivan for the Links. The actual documents do seem very good. The other poster gave them impression that there was an example in the book of China crashing planes into the WTC. It just discusses in general what Asymetrical warfare is in the modern age.

One could say that the 9/11 attacks biggest target was the US economy, just think of all the money the public and private sector has put into "homeland security" not to mention the military operations we have taken since.