Home >> Terrorism >> Terror Threats

     Email   Print 

Asymmetric Warfare and Its Domestic Effect

James McLeod-Hatch - 4/7/2005

"Asymmetric warfare" is a current voguish term that describes age-old guerrilla tactics. But while many might think that the guerrilla battles of an asymmetric war are being fought far away, in actual fact the insurgents are bringing the battle to our home soil, and this been facilitated by the rising tide of poor and non-specific regulation. The threats posed by asymmetric warfare to the troops on the ground are well covered by the media. However, the very fact that guerrilla tactics are increasingly referred to as "asymmetric warfare" hints at a difficulty faced by not only the commanders on the ground but by the government at home. The name is descriptive of an imbalance in hardware and tactics, but is also indicative of the regulatory nightmare now faced by those wishing to engage the enemy in a theatre of operations.

Broadly speaking, the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have followed a similar pattern. The initial invasions successfully installed troops around the countries; these troops are now regularly engaged by insurgent elements. But the fact that questions of prisoner abuse have arisen at both Abu Graib in Iraq and at Bagram in Afghanistan may be symptomatic of the psychological challenges presented by those fighting asymmetric opponents. Although the US High Command has attempted a field guides to fighting in an asymmetric environment, the fact remains that it is clearly difficult for even seasoned troops to operate in such conditions, let alone National Guard rookies. Troops simply do not know how to respond to a potential threat in the battlefield, and this has resulted in some calamitous disasters, such as the recent death of an Italian secret service agent, who died following the rescue of Giuliana Sgrena when US soldiers opened fire on their convoy.

These shortcomings stem partly from a lack of experienced personnel, but are undoubtedly partially caused by lumbering bureaucracy. Asymmetric warfare is indubitably a tall order anyway, but until commanders know what to tell their troops, there will be a growing dissatisfaction amongst the ranks. Prisoner abuse could have a variety of root causes, but surely at the very least it shows that the soldiers involved still felt the need to vent their battlefield aggression. Were the enemy a clear-cut entity, all for example wearing uniforms, it is less likely that soldiers would feel frustrated at not being certain if they had legitimately detained a battlefield combatant, or a hapless bystander. These frustrations would then be less likely to be manifested by abuse.

The fact that some 20 members of the SAS are threatening to leave the regiment because one of their number stands accused of murder is further evidence that regulation and bureaucracy has run amok in a sector that needs its own specific set of guidelines and rules, and should be kept distinct from, but mindful of, the corporate legislation that is threatening the judgement of troops in battle. Ever since the death of a young soldier in an Army vehicle a few years ago highlighted the difficulty of applying the concept of corporate manslaughter in the Armed Forces, the laws of health and safety have conflicted with many of the military's operational considerations. It is acutely ironic that for all the supposed benefit of more stringent health and safety regulation, a significant number of British troops were sent to Iraq without having passed basic weapon safety procedures.

It is easy to blame red tape and bureaucracy for shortcomings such as this and other failures, such as inadequate supplies of body armour. But the effect on the ground is to undermine morale and create soldiers who are hesitant about doing their job. These are not ideal battlefield participants, and their errors being deconstructed back home in the courtroom only plays further into the hands of the insurgents. With the media now so deeply embedded with military operators, it is hardly surprising that information that the public would perhaps be better off not knowing is disseminated.

The real danger for President Bush and his colleagues is that they stand to receive a bloody nose over the issue of human rights. For all their criticism of human rights in Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries, their argument would be seriously weakened if the world started to consider their security agents as synonymous with human rights abuses. It is therefore paramount that some kind of procedural rethink - one that gives battlefield commanders the comfort to act and react without needless infringements - is performed to avoid asymmetric warfare becoming responsible for crippling the operational capabilities of the West's Armed Forces. With the evils of war now being catalogued for the public through what amount to voyeuristic show-trials, all opponents to a military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the insurgents, will only have their case made the stronger.