Read the original text in English (pdf).

Steven Metz is Director of Research and Chairman of the Regional Strategy and Planning Department at the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute.
Translation from English (United States): Chloé Mariën-Casey.

Abstract

Asymmetric warfare is an old phenomenon, but has varied in strategic significance over time. Because the chances of war between major powers is low today, asymmetric conflict has again become important. Today truly is an era of strategic asymmetry. In the realm of military affairs and national security, asymmetry is acting, organising, and thinking differently than an opponent in order to maximise strengths, minimise weaknesses, attain the initiative, or gain freedom of action. It has many different forms and dimensions. Unlike many historic instances of asymmetric conflict, today it is a deliberate choice selected by those weak in conventional military power. It is shaped and driven by the bi-polarity and interconnectedness of the current global security system. Today two forms of asymmetry pose the greatest challenge for Western states: the use of terrorism by non state enemies, and protracted insurgency or internal conflict in weak states. To meet this challenge, Western militaries must revise their organisations and operational concepts to meet the complex challenges of non-state terrorism and protracted internal war.