| Chapter 1: | The Challenge of Global Terrorism |
This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.
The outcome was not one that was anticipated, but it illustrates a point that is relevant to the study of conflict. Although since Thucydides it has been assumed that power always wins, this is not necessarily the case. The weaker side, as Ivan Arreguin-Toft observes, sometimes does win asymmetric conflicts. In fact, the weaker side has been shown to be victorious in as many as 30% of asymmetric conflicts over a 200-year period. Moreover, weak actors have been increasingly victorious over time.2
Today, as the strongest nations of the world combat terrorism from an admittedly weak opponent, that of substate or nonstate terrorists, the lesson from Ashe’s match against Connors is an important one. Overwhelming force does not always spell victory in asymmetric conflicts. Sometimes, it has the opposite effect and a weaker adversary, using the right strategy, may score more points rather than fewer and force a stronger actor to back down.3
Background. Interstate war dominated the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. Intrastate or internal war then became a concern after the end of the Cold War. During this period (early to mid- and late 1990s), internal wars accounted for as many as 42 of 49 wars.4 These wars, however, were becoming increasingly internationalized and in a way that, as Hugo Slim has put it, was “very different from their predecessors during the Cold War when they were internationalized as proxy wars between the two superpower blocs.”5 Of particular concern was the growing role of substate and nonstate actors not subject to international obligations and conducting increasingly more violent activities against foreign targets.