Asymmetrical Warfare

Asymmetrical warfare is warfare between two belligerents whose effective power is vastly different.  Think the Chinese army vs. the national army of Belgium.   Not to say that Belgium is a weakling.  They aren’t.  They’re still in the top 50 or countries in the world, but they are still vastly outgunned by China.

There are numerous examples of smaller forces fending off much, much larger forces for a time.  The Alamo, Thermopylae, Vietnam, etc.

However, the smaller forces rarely, if ever, ‘win’ when there is not other factors that are restricting the larger forces.  In Vietnam, for example, the US was hamstrung by politics, poor training, and heavy use of conscript soldiers.  The lessons of Vietnam have remained with the US Military and they are now a purely volunteer force with a high level of training.

The Alamo and Thermopylae, well, were losses.  Those battles may have changed the tide of the war, but the battles themselves were losses.

A small force, unless it has an almost magical technological edge, cannot stand against a larger force that has the will and the ability to crush them.

That’s what we are facing.  We are facing a large, well trained army, that has the will and the strength to utterly crush anyone and anything that disagrees with them.  The law does not matter to these people.  The rules do not matter.  Humanity does not matter.  Empathy does not matter.

They have only the desire to win and will do anything to get it.  I could give thousands of examples, but just look at recent articles in the Washington Post, the Times, etc. etc. etc.

This is what we are up against.  It’s not two rational people sitting across a table and debating the relative merits of David Lynch and Ridley Scott.  This is one person beating the fuck out of a second person until that second person agrees that the first person it right.

Usually, it’s the smaller side in the war that does the extreme things, like holding hostages and flying airplanes into buildings.  But, when the larger side starts doing the same thing, such as holding medical care for seniors hostage or unilaterally denying the right to vote to thousands of US citizens, then how can the smaller side win?

It can be done.  Make no mistake though, this is a war.  The future of the country is dependent on this.  If we lose this battle this year, then it is likely the end of our country.  If we win the battle this year, then the fight doesn’t end… it’s just beginning.

A final note and this may shock you.

Wars are ALWAYS started by the defender.  The attacker doesn’t want a fight.  They just want to control the territory, business, person, or whatever.  If the defender would just submit, then there is no war.

So, you have to ask yourself, is this a war worth fighting?

I think it is.  I’m tired and it’s massively depressing, but I struggle on.  Trying to make some headway as a middle-class citizen in a society that only cares for the 1%.

This entry was posted in Culture, Government, Society and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Asymmetrical Warfare

  1. That wars are started by the defender seems to depend on a very selective definition of “started”, but I think I know what you meant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s