Introduction to Symmetrical Warfare

To understand asymmetrical warfare, it is necessary to understand symmetrical warfare. Taken at face value, the phrase “symmetrical warfare” is warfare where the opponents have comparable military power and use similar tactics. But this is not what it really means!

Symmetrical warfare is where both sides use conventional tactics and strategies – they follow the “standard way of doing business.” Symmetric warfare is:

• Instigated and directed by sovereign powers (state actors)
• Seen as a “continuation of policy by other means.” (Clausewitz, Book 1 Ch. 1)
• Both sides have some sort of military force already in existence, with sufficient provisions (Tzu, Ch. 2)
• These military forces are hierarchically organized.
• For modern symmetric wars, both sides use supply chain logistic systems.
• Object is to destroy the enemy’s military capability (to win as opposed to “not lose”) at minimal cost. (Clausewitz, Book 3 Ch. 14)
• Lack of serious domestic opposition
• Both have the capability of attacking, invading, and occupying the other’s territory.
• There are clearly defined battle fields (“fronts”)
• There is a (more or less) clear separation between civilians and combatants.
• Targets are the enemy’s combatants, territory, and infrastructure (as opposed to political or psychological “targets,” e.g. “will to fight”)
• Both sides wish to avoid enemy escalation

There are a wide variety of tactics used in symmetrical warfare, broadly:

• Multi-modal attacks (land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace)
• Reliance on technological advancements
• Optimized logistic networks.
• Use of frontal offenses (not engaging in “hit and run” attacks)
• Close physical proximity for extended periods of time
• Discretize actions into battles and campaigns.

The United States has participated in both symmetric and asymmetric wars, using either conventional or irregular fighting styles. The paragon of symmetric warfare would for the US be World War II. The Korean War is an example of asymmetric warfare where the US used conventional fighting styles against an enemy who used unconventional means. Against the North Vietnamese, the US used both conventional and irregular fighting styles through the Special Forces. Examples where the US used unconventional tactics were the Revolutionary War and parts of the War of 1812.

An example of a war that transitioned from symmetric to asymmetric would be the second Iraq War – it was symmetric for a few months following the invasion in 2003 then became asymmetrical as the insurgency began. There are signs that the Russia-Ukraine War is undergoing a similar transition (Aslan, 2023).

References

Aslan, Murat. (2023). “Symmetric and Asymmetric Warfare in the Russia-Ukraine War”. Politics Today. Retrieved 20 March 2024 from https://politicstoday.org/symmetric-and-asymmetric-warfare-russia-ukraine-war/

Clausewitz, Carl von, (1989). On War. Michael Howard and Peter Paret, trans. Princeton University Press.

Tzu, Sun. (2020). The Art of War: A New Translation by Michael Nylan. W. W. Norton & Company.