Deterring and Responding to Asymmetrical Threats

Abstract

Abstract : The United States involvement in military operations around the world has operational commanders on the front line against asymmetrical threats, be it from state or nonstate actors. In Somalia US soldiers were exposed to mortar attacks that originated from hospitals and schoolyards. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, US soldiers confronted an enemy that hid weapons in mosques, hospitals, and schools and wore civilian clothing to avoid destruction. Operational commanders will continue to face these types of threats regardless of the type of operation they undertake: Offense, Defense, Stability, or Support. The tendency for belligerent actors to avoid open area conflict with the United States will certainly increase. These approaches are intended to offset America's strength and intended to attack America's weakness. With the increase of asymmetric attacks and the potential of the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to rogue actors, where does this leave the United States' strategy of nuclear and conventional deterrence? Is the US Army capable in playing a deterrent role against these threats? This study examines the doctrinal definition of deterrence, reviews Bernard Brodie's deterrence theory and discusses the impacts of his theory upon state and nonstate actors. The study further defines the terms asymmetry and asymmetrical threats and reviews a World View Threat survey (European and American) that identifies these asymmetrical threats as Islamic fundamentalists. Additionally, the study presents the ends, ways, and means utilized by the Union Army during the Civil War, and the ends, ways, means utilized by the US Army during operations in Bosnia in order to deter asymmetrical threats. The study concludes by presenting operational commanders with five principles for consideration when designing campaign plans against asymmetrical threats.