Asymmetry in wars… Gaza is a new model
Asymmetry is a reality that has accompanied human life since its origins. It is present and active in all mutual human relationships. Some describe asymmetry as a reflection of the relationship between the strong and the weak. It is a relationship born between David on the one hand and the giant Goliath on the other, precisely to demonstrate that the weak sometimes have the opportunity to triumph over the strong. At the very least, it prevented it from deciding the battle in his favor. Consequentially; The weak must secure the political will, the correct strategy and the necessary means of implementation.
Asymmetry also exists between great powers. In all conventional armies, asymmetry exists. In other words, all traditional armies fight traditionally, but they also fight “asymmetrically”. Otherwise, what is the meaning of the presence of special forces fighting behind enemy lines in any modern army?
Out-of-state organizations
American thinker Stephen Biddle says that the controversy now revolves around two different methods of struggle between the non-state actor (NSA) on the one hand and the armies of the states on the other. There is a fighting method according to the style of Fabian, the Roman emperor who fought Hannibal in the Second Punic War. This method is based on fighting that is aimed at exhausting the enemy’s capabilities for long periods, but without getting involved in a decisive and decisive battle.
There is also a method of combat according to the style of Napoleon Bonaparte (also according to the thinker Stephen Biddle), which proposed attacking the enemy with successive and rapid blows, and then moving on to the final decisive phase, through the use of reserve forces. Napoleon’s strategy was successful only because it was based on numbers, i.e. on the large army (La Levee en Masse).
In the 21st century, a new-old actor has emerged on the military and political scene, namely the non-state actor.
Strategic thinkers say that among the reasons for the return of non-state actors to the theater of war in the 21st century is the diffusion and ease of obtaining advanced technology, which was previously limited to states. Rapid urbanization due to the spread of the population and the movement from the countryside to the cities. Last but not least, countries have significantly reduced the number of their armies; This required those outside the state to fortify themselves within the cities, thus creating an asymmetric situation or creating what is known as a “state within a state”.
The state and the extra-state player
Here the question of the new style of the state in dealing with players outside the state framework is raised.
In the recurring scheme the following can be observed:
Organizations outside the state framework have managed to create political entities for themselves, the most important of which is control over the territory, as well as the infrastructure for managing these entities, whether they are called terrorist organizations or by other names. But when the state decided to reconquer the land and eliminate these organizations, it was forced to fight inside the cities. Therefore; The state attempted, with military force, to confine these organizations to residential areas and then to confront them militarily.
This way the strengths of both sides are revealed. In besieging cities, the state has the firepower, logistical capabilities, numerical superiority and legitimacy needed to address its internal problems. On the other hand, fighting within the cities costs the State, but it is a factor of strength for the organizations. Organizations consider human shields, as well as civil engineering, a factor in their strength. Sacrifice everything to continue. He wins if he doesn’t lose. Because of these things, people pay the price of the struggle with their money and their lives.
So the model of relationship between the State and organizations is the following: remove organizations from outside the city and push them inside. Total siege of the city. An attempt to destroy the centers of gravity of these organizations, including human and material infrastructure. As these organizations fight in a guerrilla manner, the destruction of the city is great. If the State were to win, everyone would pay a high price, especially civilians. This pattern was repeated in the battle of Nahr al-Bared in Lebanon between the army and terrorist organizations entrenched in this Palestinian camp in northern Lebanon. It has also been repeated in every city that has been liberated from ISIS control, from Mosul in Iraq to Raqqa in Syria, passing through many small towns that were under the rule of this organization at the height of its influence.
The war in Gaza today
The Gaza war has many similarities to other civil wars. It occurs in residential places. And between an actor outside the framework of the State and against a State surrounding this actor or organization. The state has the most modern army in the world and uses the highest possible firepower. Which leads to the killing of civilians and the complete destruction of the city. The combatants’ goal is the complete and utter destruction of the other. Hamas cannot destroy the State of Israel. On the other hand, destroying the organization does not eliminate the problem.
Everyone is in trouble right now, so what comes after the humanitarian pause? Will the war return? If it stops, what will happen to Israeli and American objectives? How does Hamas describe its victory? Is it just persevering and continuing? How does Hamas translate what it has done into the political dimension?
In conclusion, social scientists say: procrastination is a human characteristic and leads to complexity in the implementation of life issues of the individual. If a job requires specific time and effort, you should not procrastinate. Because the issue could introduce complications into the solution and implementation equation that were not originally calculated, causing the issue to spiral out of control. Israel procrastinated after the Arab initiative in Beirut in 2002 to resolve the Palestinian issue. And now it is paying huge prices after many regional factors entered the equation to complicate it even more. Perhaps the most important of these factors is the out-of-state player factor.