The "New Terror" and the Harms of Asymmetrical Warfare

Terrorism in the modern sense, if arguably grounded in the same ideology as more historical veins, still plays a much more aggressive role in shaping world politics today. In the past, “terrorists” were non-state actors who were incapable of causing significant harm to the affairs of the state. This was primarily due in part to these groups’ lack of organization and resources. Even the most prominent examples, such as the infamous Gunpowder Plot, failed to incur any sort of radical change in public policy.

Current forms of terrorism have taken a radical shift from this historic failing. In part due to the growing availability of mass media coverage, acts of terrorism now command a much higher audience than before. Part of this has to do with the rise of mass media and the spread of global news platforms. Furthermore, as stated in Terrorism & the Media, a publication by the European Union-financed research project Transnational Terrorism, Security & the Rule of Law, “Today, for all of us – and more often than we acknowledge it – the desire to be entertained takes over the need to know.” (Ockrent 2006, 77). And this leads to a focus on human interest and drama rather than “hard” news stories. This “lust” for human interest stories and drama can lead to overcoverage [sic] of terrorist activities.”

This current growth in visibility, coupled with the rising interconnectedness of world markets, means that terrorists now command a much higher output of power than before. For the price of a few explosives, even the most rag-tag group can get their message splashed across the evening news. This shift in the balance of power is paralleled by states’ transforming modes of warfare. The time of constant state vs. state warfare is quickly becoming obsolete. Without state aggressors to contend with, governments have now turned to a distinctly different enemy – the non-state terrorist actor.

The clearest example of this is obviously the United States’ “War on Terror,” a textbook example of asymmetrical warfare. This example fulfills the basic tenets for asymmetrical warfare – a major state actor, with a fully equipped, tax-payer funded military, fighting a decentralized group of individuals that blends easily into the populace. This type of warfare would have been unheard of a century ago – the idea of a state committing major resources towards fighting a terrorist network would have seemed ludicrous in the days of Guy Fawkes. In this vein, one can see the obvious growth in terrorists’ relative power. By hijacking several commercial airplanes, Al Qaeda was able to essentially shape the entirety of US foreign policy for the next several years. Regardless of what critics have to say about the power of terrorist networks, the fact of the matter is they managed to command about one-third of the US Defense Department’s budget.

This rise in asymmetrical warfare is not without costs however. Pitting massive state militaries against relatively tiny non-states is always bound to lead to outsize losses. But the most disturbing effect of asymmetrical warfare is the rise in civilian casualties. The most distinct trait about terrorist networks is their tendency to use guerilla tactics in fighting. This strategy of blending in with the populace creates an advantaged out of what was originally a handicap of these organizations – their inability to commit hand to hand combat on the traditional battlefield. However, this growing use of civilian as “camouflage” has led to many states adopting war strategies that disregard the rules of the fourth Geneva Convention, which stipulates that no civilians may be deliberately harmed in the course of conflict. Unable to discern who the enemy is and who is a civilian, state military forces are increasingly taking a “bomb-them-all” strategy.

However, this is not the only factor behind the rise of civilian casualties. Many terrorist organizations, faced with an increasing burden of warfare that has never existed in the past, are turning to more controversial, such as the use child soldiers and forced recruitment. In the past, most terrorist cells could be adequately described as freedom fighters, groups of people united by a single radical ideology. However, these groups often did not have the sort of resources available to commit to prolonged battle with a state actor. Now, while most terrorist groups have slightly more power available to them, they do not have enough resources to combat a taxpayer funded military for a long period of time, which has led to the use of these controversial methods.

The cost of asymmetrical warfare can thus be measured by these two distinct scales. Citizens are first impacted by attacks meant for terrorist actors supposedly hiding within their ranks. This is then compounded by reactionary tactics by the terrorist networks, which often impose equally harsh punishments on the local populace. An example of this is the recently ended civil war in Sri Lanka. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, also known as the Tamil Tigers or LTTE, were a radical group created in response to what they saw as discriminatory measures on behalf of the Sri Lankan government against the Tamils, an ethnic minority group in Sri Lanka. These measures included a government aided attacking of Tamil civilians in what became known as the Black July riots in 1983, in what would come to be seen as the starting point in a decades long civil war. However, while the Tamil Tigers originally started out as a ‘liberation’ movement, claiming to be fighting for a sovereign Tamil homeland in the north of the country, their benefit for the ethnic Tamil population is questionable at best. The group’s usage of guerilla tactic led in part to a government sponsored brutalizing of Tamil populations in the name of “flushing out the enemy.” Furthermore, ethnic Tamils faced the worry of forced recruitment into the front, with many children and especially boys ‘disappearing’ into the movement. The result was a ravaged ethnic population that was caught between a rock and a hard place – a government that didn’t trust them or “freedom fighters” that needed suicide bombers.

It is cases like this that make the case for asymmetrical warfare much more difficult. At least in state vs. state warfare, the rules of battle are clearly delineated. Asymmetrical warfare does away with distinction between soldier and citizen, creating a state of constant warfare that permeates all of society. The result is unfortunate for both sides – the state expends more money than ever on fighting an enemy it can’t see and the organization fails to get its ideological aims realized. However, the true victims are the populace, who are faced to deal with a new form of warfare that fails to dissipate.

Works Cited

Herber , David. "Guy Fawkes: A Biography." Brittania History. Brittania, 2007. Web. 23 Oct 2011. .

"Terrorism & Media." Transnational Terrorism, Security & the Rule of Law. 6.4 (2008): 15. Web. 23 Oct. 2011. .

"Department of Defense Timeline."Defense Department . Department of Defense, O7 May 2009. Web. 23 Oct 2011. .

"The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Their Protocols."International Committee of the Red Cross. International Committee of the Red Cross, 06 Oct 2011. Web. 23 Oct 2011. .

"Complete Timeline." Peace and Conflict Timeline. PACT, 22 Oct 2009. Web. 23 Oct 2011. .