Asymmetric Security Threats and Methods of Response

Summary:

The structural and value changes following the global transformations since the end of the Cold War have contributed to shaping a global society characterized by complexity, interconnection, and ambiguity, where the intensity of security threats varies from one region to another.

The structure and map of security risks and threats have shifted from a traditional model to a new one often referred to as “asymmetric threats,” and more recently, “hybrid threats.” This terminology reflects the increasing complexity, dynamism, and ongoing evolution affecting the security phenomenon in international relations, stemming from interactions with real-world developments, particularly in relation to technological, cognitive, and technical advancements.

Based on this, the study aims to shed light on the transformations that have affected the nature of security threats since the end of the Cold War, in addition to attempting to diagnose the most prominent new security threats that ascend the hierarchy of international community issues.

Keywords: Security threat, national security, asymmetric threats, hybrid threats, international transformations, technological and cognitive development.

If the Cold War was a powerful source of rigor and ideological consistency led by the two blocs (USA & USSR), creating a single fault line between the differences in the international system (socialist communism/capitalist liberalism), this new line began to collapse and disintegrate by the late 1980s due to the interaction of several factors that led to deep structural and value changes affecting the international system and international relations.

This was also followed by significant scattered events that left clear marks on international and security policies, such as the events of September 11 and the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. When scrutinizing these events within a precise security context, we find they express a new trajectory of the security dimension in international relations, with new concepts, theories, actors, and security threats that transcend the narrow state-centric military scope of security and threats. Many thinkers, such as Barry Buzan and Ole Waever, have called for surpassing the narrow thinking of security and security threats, which revolves around state security and military security, expanding this thinking by exploring new actors threatening security and new security threats.

Amid these circumstances, we will also observe that most discussions today in political and academic circles involve new security issues characterized by an asymmetric nature, such as the phenomenon of terrorism, organized crime, and illegal migration. These are new security threats often driven by unconventional security actors seeking to achieve their desired goals.

Research Problem:

This research paper attempts to construct a cognitive framework regarding asymmetric security threats and to reveal the most significant intellectual implications, based on the following central question:

To simplify this problem, it will be deconstructed into several sub-questions as follows:

• What is a security threat? What are its most prominent classifications?
• What are asymmetric threats? Where do they ideally fit?
• Based on current events in international relations, what are the most significant asymmetric security threats negatively impacting global security?

Importance of the Study:

The importance of the study lies in the following:

It derives its significance and scientific and realistic value from the importance of security and strategic studies in international relations; it attempts to convey the idea that security is a “constant value” in human life that must be preserved by understanding new security threats and linking them to the transformations and developments occurring in the global security environment.

Moreover, it is crucial as it reveals new forms of security threats, through which questions can be raised about how to contain them and mitigate their severity and danger in order to reach an insular approach to securing security, especially since we find ourselves in a very complex and ambiguous security environment governed by a state of “uncertainty.”

The study represents a new area of research, coinciding with the dynamic developments occurring in the international environment, especially in the Arab region.

Objectives of the Study:

This study aims to achieve several objectives, chiefly:

• To attempt to reach a suitable cognitive framework through which asymmetric security threats can be interpreted and analyzed.
• To study the relationship between the variables of security threat and the transformations and developments in the international environment and how this relationship reflects on global security.

Methodology of the Study:

The study relies on the descriptive analytical method, which was used to identify and objectively describe the characteristics and dimensions of the studied phenomenon by collecting facts and data and utilizing tools and techniques of scientific research.

It is noteworthy that this study starts from the general to the specific, initially clarifying the concept of security threat and defining its nature and classifications in general. It then addresses asymmetric security threats, in addition to studying the most prominent asymmetric threats affecting global security, using examples and evidence.

Previous Studies:

This study has been addressed in several previous studies partially as an attempt to provide academic scientific frameworks that help understand new security threats. Notable among them is an article by Suleiman Abdullah Al-Harbi titled “The Concept of Security, Its Levels, Forms, and Threats (A Theoretical Study in Concepts and Frameworks),” published in the Arab Journal of Political Science in 2008, in which the researcher attempted to reach a conceptual approach or cognitive framework for accurately determining security determinants by studying its dimensions, levels, and forms. The researcher also discussed the relationship between security and threats.

Another example is a study by researcher Hans Günter Brauch titled “Concepts of Security Threats, Challenges, Vulnerabilities, and Risks,” which is a detailed analytical study of the most prominent concepts used in studying national security, addressing concepts such as security, security threat, danger, and vulnerabilities.

Other studies and articles discussing asymmetric and hybrid threats have been relied upon in our topic, such as Toni Pfanner’s study on asymmetric wars and Frank G. Hoffman’s work on “Conflicts in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars.”

Structure of the Research:

The study is divided into three sections, in addition to an introduction and conclusion, where several concepts such as threat, challenge, danger, and risk will be clarified. The first section will outline the most prominent classifications of security threats. The second section will portray asymmetric threats, while the third section will include the most notable new threats impacting global security, such as transnational terrorism, organized crime, illegal immigration, and others.

Understanding Security Threats:

Addressing the topic of new security threats necessitates employing some fundamental concepts that need to be scrutinized for their accurate usage and understanding, including the concepts of threat, risk, and challenge. Additionally, understanding the prominent classifications of security threats and the factors that contribute to defining them is essential, allowing us to approach and explore them more accurately.

Definition of Security Threat:

The term “threat” refers to an attempt to inflict harm or cause damage to a particular target, with the intention of disrupting security. In German, it is translated as “Drohung” or “Bedrohung”, and in French as “menace”.
A threat implies the intention to harm, punish, or inflict damage through hostile actions directed at a specified person or entity.

The Oxford Dictionary describes a threat as “an attempt by someone or something to harm the lives of others,” such as pollution threatening the lives of animals and humans.

In terms of the etymological meaning of the term, the word threat has a relatively newly established connotation at the academic level. The threats countries faced previously fell within the narrow military circle of external origin. However, with the increasing complexity of security phenomena due to the structural and value transformations occurring in international relations following the end of the Cold War, the sphere of threats has expanded to include economic, social, cultural, and environmental threats, originating not only externally but also internally. This led to the emergence of various levels (individual, regional, international, etc.) and gave rise to a new theoretical concept of a threat characterized by its multi-faceted and complex nature.

Terry L. Debel argues that a threat is “an active and effective action carried out by a particular state to influence the behavior of another state, with success dependent on several factors including credibility, seriousness, and capabilities that match the threat.” He identifies three characteristics of a threat: degree of severity, probability of occurrence, and timing.

Barry Buzan defines a threat as “a threat to state institutions using ideology or the state’s capacity components against another state, where a state’s territory may be threatened by harm, invasion, or occupation. Threats can come from outside or inside, and Buzan believes that strong states usually face external threats, unlike weak states that face threats from both internally and externally.”

The Czech researcher Jan Eichler argues that a threat expresses the will to inflict harm on an actor (individual/group/state…), conditioned by the following elements:

• It causes a state of panic and fear.
• The ability to target directly the state or its citizens or neighboring states, leading to geopolitical effects. For instance, security chaos and existing security threats in neighboring countries such as Libya leave Algeria in a state of fear and readiness to face potential threats from those areas.
• Degree of severity, or the nature of danger (possible, actual, latent); the more dangerous a threat, the more it requires immediate and effective response from the threatened party.

From these selected definitions, several points can be derived that constitute the real essence of the concept of threat as follows:

• A threat expresses an intention to inflict harm and damage aimed at disrupting security.
• The threat is influenced by developments and changes taking place in reality, which adds a dynamic and relative aspect to the concept of threat.
• Threat levels are multi-faceted (individual, group, state, regional, etc.), with sources both from within and outside the state, contributing to its complexity and intricacies.
• Threats interact and interrelate with multiple other threats in the current environment.

Security Threat and Similar Concepts

The issue of accurately defining terms related to security threats continues to be a major topic of discussion among scholars and researchers. Many confuse the terms “challenge” and “risk,” using them interchangeably with security threat, which can negatively impact the assessments made in the study.

Thus, it is essential to distinguish between these concepts and control their precise usage, based on Voltaire’s assertion: “If you want to understand me, you need to clarify your terms,” which we aim to follow in this section.

Challenge

The term “challenge” linguistically derives from the verb “تحدى,” referring to a situation where someone contests another over something, translating to “Challenge” in English, “Herausforderung” in German, and “Défi” in French.

British English dictionaries indicate several meanings for the challenge; it denotes a difficult task that requires testing, strength, and skill, and it is also an invitation to competition and confrontation, as when someone proposes a duel to another.

Scientifically, it is agreed that the term “challenge” refers to a complex set of problems and circumstances created by our conscious and unconscious desires and actions. Suleiman Abdullah Al-Harbi defines it as “the problems, difficulties, or risks faced by the state that challenge and hinder its progress, posing a barrier to achieving its security, stability, and vital common interests that are hard to avoid or neglect.” For instance, both unemployment and demographic explosion issues represent challenges for the state.

A challenge tests the state’s capacity to manage its affairs and compete with others, whether these challenges are internal or external.

Risk

Le Petite Robert dictionary defines “risk” as any threatening act that may occur and whose predictability oscillates between increase and decrease; it relates to society’s capacity and resilience to confront it.

Many thinkers consider it a characteristic indicating something that yields moral or material harm. When we say something is risky, we mean it may entail moral or material damage, leading to loss, devastation, or injury. Risk encompasses three fundamental elements:

• The source producing the risk.
• The means of transmitting the risk, which can be mechanical, chemical, or radiological.
• The environment conveying the risk, whether aquatic, urban, or aerial.

Ulrich Beck argues in his book “Risk Society” that risk constitutes damage threatening the security of individuals, the environment, and human collectives, but it is about to happen or has occurred and can be contained if it does not worsen. Beck also observes that risks have intensified and diversified with technological and scientific advancements and the rising effects of globalization, characterized by their swift spread from one area to another.

Classifications of Security Threats

Several criteria are used by scholars and researchers to classify security threats. Some researchers focus on the criterion of “field” while others apply a “geographical” criterion or prefer contemporary classifications emphasizing “similarity” and “influence.”

Regarding the field: Many researchers prefer to classify security threats based on field criteria, which includes:

• Political Threats: These entail the absence of a cohesive and responsive political system that meets the aspirations of the people, alongside a nearly total lack of indicators of democracy and good governance.
• Economic Threats: These manifest in the lack of fair wealth distribution, a weak gross national product and per capita income, and the state’s susceptibility to the fallout of economic globalization, financial crises, and economic sanctions.
• Social and Cultural Threats: These are evident in the widening circles of poverty, hunger, illiteracy, unemployment, epidemics, migration, and demographic growth that do not align or correspond with economic growth rates, along with increasing social disintegration and declining levels of social services, leading to a deteriorating human condition. Furthermore, cultural penetration into the identities of communities and states emerges due to the organic connection of globalization developments to the advancement of communication and technology, which has made the world shift from being limited to unlimited. The rise of extremist fundamentalist movements has become a principal threat to global peace.
• Environmental Threats: These encompass any threats affecting the environment (land, water, air) we inhabit, representing a horizontal and universal security issue not geographically constrained and impacting all actors and fields. Such threats include pollution, global warming, ozone layer depletion, species extinction, soil pollution due to the misuse of fertilizers and pesticides, and pollution of fresh and groundwater and oceans, along with the excessive consumption of non-renewable energy sources (oil, coal, natural and shale gas, etc.).

With respect to degree of severity: Arab thinker Suleiman Abdullah Al-Harbi, in an article in the Arab Journal of Political Science titled “The Concept of Security: Its Levels, Forms, and Threats (A Theoretical Study in Concepts and Frameworks),” suggests that security threats can be classified by severity into:

• Actual Threats: These pose an immediate danger to the state due to the serious and actual use of military force.
• Potential Threats: These are identified by a set of real factors indicating that a state is under threat without reaching the stage of military force use.
• Latent Threats: These are characterized by their invisibility; they arise from causes of discord between two or more states without visible surface manifestations.
• Perceived Threats: These are threats that may appear in the future.

With respect to degree of similarity: Some researchers argue that security threats can be classified by degree of similarity among actors into:

• Symmetrical Threats: This refers to the traditional model of threats characterized by their military nature and inter-state scenarios, such as military threats exchanged between one state and another.
• Asymmetrical Threats: These are based on the idea of ambiguity and the inability to identify the nature of the enemy, emerging from unequal power dynamics. This type includes economic crime, arms trafficking, transnational terrorism, organized crime, and internal conflicts accompanied by widespread violations of human rights, and genocide, which find a favorable environment in failed states. This shift resulted from significant changes in the structure of security risks from the symmetrical pattern (given the symmetry of its actors) to the “asymmetrical pattern” (considering the asymmetry nature of its actors) coinciding with the changes and transformations occurring in the global system.

It is noteworthy that there are elements contributing to defining security threats, which can be analyzed for any security threat, including:

• Nature of the threat: What is the classification of this threat? What are its most significant dimensions?
• Place of the threat: What is the geographical scope of this threat? What are its extensions?
• Time of the threat: What are its immediate and future effects?
• Degree of the threat: How severe is this threat? How dangerous is it?
• Resource mobilization: What are the appropriate material, human, and moral measures to confront this threat and minimize its impact and dimensions?

As a result of the aforementioned, we conclude that the concept of security threat is relatively complex and dynamic, thus requiring scientific accuracy in defining it by understanding the most notable characteristics and dimensions that embody this concept to facilitate its diagnosis and treatment, akin to a physician revealing the nature of an ailment afflicting a patient, subsequently attempting to diagnose and remedy it.

Asymmetric Threats

When describing the global security environment since the end of the Cold War, we approach the fundamental hypothesis that “human progress confirms a considerable capacity for change and transformation.” This marks the distinction between each era and the subsequent one. If such change impacts power dynamics in international relations, it will affect the balance of power in the international system and the order of units and the value system within it, prompting us to reconsider many established facts, including those related to security.

An observer of the global security environment over the last three decades will note that the nature of risks threatening global security has shifted from the traditional focus on the state as the threatening actor and the militaristic nature of the threat to numerous new patterns, among which asymmetrical threats are evident, which we shall clarify and simplify in this section.

Definition of Asymmetric Threats

Also known as non-symmetrical or unequal threats, these occur between actors of unequal power, often representing compensation for resource deficiencies of the weaker party relying on a variety of methods to exploit the vulnerabilities of the stronger party.

Examples of such threats are state wars against terrorism and organized crime syndicates. The term “asymmetric threats” is the antithesis of symmetrical threats, which denote the classical military threats between states.

At a higher level of threat, many studies refer to asymmetric warfare as the prevailing type of warfare today, termed “wars of this age,” where combatants are unequal in strength, means, and organization. It manifests in various forms and can be interpreted at three levels: field level (characterized by numerous covert operations, surprise, betrayal, and tricks), military strategic level (guerrilla warfare, blitzkrieg, etc.), and political strategic level (culturally, morally, and religiously coded warfare).

This term is frequently used in Anglo-Saxon studies, such as research by Steven Lambakis, James Kiras, and Kirstin Kolet in a study titled “Understanding Asymmetric Threats to the USA,” as well as David Buffaloe’s “Defining Asymmetric Warfare.”

In the US, this term has been used to describe new risks faced by national security as follows:

• New threats characterized by surprise, dynamic, and unfamiliar.
• New operational methods and tactics employed by groups to threaten American security.
• Ambiguity and difficulty in identifying the nature of the adversary threatening American security.

Asymmetric Threats and Hybrid Threats

The term “hybrid” stems from an analysis conducted by US naval forces on operational experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2005, General James Mattis, who served as commander of the US Central Command, wrote in the US Naval Institute Proceedings about the emergence of irregular methods of threats such as terrorism, insurgency, and drug trafficking.

In this analysis, it is noted that non-state adversaries seek to exploit tactical advantages at times and places of their choosing rather than abide by established rules. They attempt to build a series of small tactical impacts and then amplify them through media and information warfare to undermine American resolve. Hence, a process of integration emerges between various methods and military forms, leading to a “hybrid war.”

Frank Hofmann defines hybrid threats as incorporating a full range of different modalities of warfare, including conventional capabilities, irregular tactics and formations, terrorist acts including indiscriminate violence and coercion, and criminal disorder.

Hybrid threats incorporate a full range of different modes of warfare including conventional capabilities, irregular tactics and formations, terrorist acts including indiscriminate violence and coercion, and criminal disorder.

Hybrid threats are abundant in regions that are no longer under state control. They enjoy rapid dissemination and involve non-state actors using a combination of traditional and unconventional means, such as conventional warfare, organized crime, terrorism, disruptive actions, and technology manipulation, often characterized by their complex and elusive nature due to their ambiguity, interactions, and ramifications.

Hybrid threats also present a formidable challenge to state security and global safety, being more complicated and intricate than asymmetric threats, and more inclusive.

Prominent Asymmetric Threats

Asymmetric threats have come to dominate discussions in political and security circles, particularly concerning the triangle of terrorism, organized crime, and illegal immigration, which represent some of the most pressing challenges undermining global peace and security today due to their dynamic nature and the difficulty of addressing them.

The Terrorist Phenomenon

Anyone sifting through the vast literature on terrorism will observe extensive debates surrounding the definition of terrorism as a basis for measuring this phenomenon. Yet, there remains no consensus on a fitting definition for this growing threat to humanity.

In a study conducted by Alex Schmid examining over a hundred definitions by experts and researchers in terror studies, he concluded that terrorism is “an abstract concept with no real essence,” subject to the pragmatic nature of the dominant states in international affairs, with most definitions focusing on three essential elements: the actor, the terrorist act, and the victim.

An understanding could classify terrorism as “a violent act aimed at compelling a group to adopt certain views, imposing a different equation through the logic of force by creating fear and sowing panic.” It is a tactic employed by individuals and groups against governments, and can also be observed as being utilized by governments against specific groups.

David Tucker terms this new form of terrorism as a “new network composed of groups and amateurs that are interconnected in a network fashion,” differing from the traditional hierarchical model where terrorist groups are dismantled through a “decapitation” strategy (elimination of the leader).

These groups exhibit flexibility and adaptability and often resort to both traditional methods and innovative hybrid tactics to execute their attacks, including social media networks, websites, encryption, cybercrime, and chemical, biological, and radiological materials, thereby increasing casualty rates not only nationally but globally.

It is important to note that in addition to group terrorism, there is also state terrorism, implemented by a government against its populace when it fails to meet their demands and needs, exemplified by the actions of Serbian forces under Slobodan Milošević against Muslims in Serbia.

Terrorism adversely impacts national security as it constitutes both a threat and a challenge simultaneously. It poses threats to regional and global security, as well as the stability and safety of international society. It provokes humanitarian sentiments and the global conscience, serving as a factor of tension in international relations among nations, illustrated by the alleged events of September 11, 2011, which resulted in approximately 2,985 fatalities, exacerbating tensions between the United States and Arab countries. Moreover, the escalating frequency of this phenomenon and the rising incidence of terrorist activities and their resultant losses reinforce the scenario that this threat will persist as a significant obstacle and future challenge to achieving security, especially in fragile and failed states, as observed in the Arab region, which has seen escalating phenomena of radicalization since 2013.

Organized Crime

Organized crime is also defined as a criminal organization consisting of individuals or groups operating systematically to gain financial benefits through illegal activities. Its members operate through a precise and complex organizational structure that resembles economic institutions. Organized crime encompasses theft, robbery, economic and social looting, smuggling, drug trafficking, human trafficking, industrial fraud, counterfeiting, and any act prohibited by internal and international law that is committed systematically and premeditatedly.

Organized crime intersects with terrorism in their organized and illicit nature but differs in their objectives; while terrorism aims at achieving ideological and political goals through violence, organized crime’s primary aim is financial gain. There is a relational dynamic between the two in terms of functional cooperation, exchanging technical expertise, such as organized crime syndicates supplying terrorists with identity forgery technology, and roles through the interchange of active individuals whereby organized crime groups provide funds and arms to terrorists while terror groups offer protection to them.

Illegal Immigration

Immigration has become a global phenomenon, escalating in percentage and expanding in scope in terms of volume and spread, with various forms emerging, particularly in recent decades due to psychological, social, and economic push factors, and pull factors attracting migrants seeking a better life in destination countries.

Different references indicate that immigration generally refers to the movement of individuals from one place to another, with the intent of remaining in the new place for an extended period. Immigration can be categorized in various ways concerning numerical criteria, scope, duration, legal status, and mutual satisfaction regarding the immigration process. The focus of this study is primarily on the latter classification, with legal immigration denoting that which corresponds to mutual consent and the legal soundness of the immigration process, validated through travel documents or permits authorized by the destination country, whereas illegal immigration refers to individuals entering unlawfully and without valid visas or prior permissions to industrialized nations through arrangements with human smugglers, breaching borders, or fraudulent marriages aimed at gaining residency status, along with the use of forged documents and passports.

It is noteworthy that illegal immigration as an asymmetric security threat has emerged as a significant concern for both receiving and sending countries, as well as transit nations, such as the Maghreb region. Security-wise, illegal immigrants may engage in crimes and acts of violence, possibly even terrorist actions, stemming from a lack of suitable job opportunities. They might also be exploited by armed groups like Al-Qaeda. The influx of migrants affects the demographic and socio-cultural fabric of receiving countries, particularly if immigrants maintain their cultural roots, leading to disruptions in social and cultural security.

From an economic perspective, some analysts argue that migrants act as a sponge absorbing development, as the influx of the impoverished into developed nations in significant numbers increases unemployment burdens and intensifies competition between the citizens of the host country and the immigrants, particularly during economic recessions, leading to upheavals within the state.

Conclusion:

This paper illustrates that asymmetric threats result from developments in the global security environment. The nature of these threats has taken more complex forms influenced by advancements in technology and information, creating new tools and mechanisms for confrontation that are difficult to pinpoint, unlike yesterday’s traditional enemy, whose location and nature were easier to identify.

Typically, these threats find an optimal environment in failed and fragile states conducive to their expansion, examples of which include Libya, Iraq, Syria, and the Sahel region, where insurgent movements, separatist groups, terrorist organizations, and organized crime syndicates thrive.

Given the complexity inherent to these threats, there is an urgent need for a more expedited adaptability to address the new configurations of tactics employed by threatening actors and to deter them, through increasing economic sanctions and smart penalties against them, confronting them in collective language, and activating panopticism.

References

“Unrestricted Warfare” by Qiao Liang & Wang Xiangsui
A Chinese military treatise discussing non-traditional warfare like cyber, economic, and psychological operations.

“The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World” by Rupert Smith
Argues that modern conflict is no longer industrial warfare but ‘wars amongst the people.’

“Counterinsurgency” by David Kilcullen
Essential reading on insurgency and counterinsurgency strategies based on fieldwork in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One” by David Kilcullen
Analyzes how global counterterrorism efforts create complex local resistance.

“Understanding Modern Warfare” by David Jordan, James D. Kiras, et al.
A comprehensive textbook covering conventional and unconventional warfare methods.

“Cyberpower and National Security” edited by Franklin D. Kramer, Stuart H. Starr & Larry K. Wentz
Explores the implications of cyber threats and policy-level responses.

“Hybrid Warfare: Fighting Complex Opponents from the Ancient World to the Present” by Williamson Murray and Peter R. Mansoor
Examines historical and modern examples of hybrid threats—blending regular and irregular tactics.

“The Future of Power” by Joseph S. Nye Jr.
Introduces “smart power” and how non-traditional threats reshape global power dynamics.

“Insurgency and Counterinsurgency: A Global History” by Jeremy Black
Chronological and thematic study of insurgent movements and military/political responses.

“Out of the Mountains: The Coming Age of the Urban Guerrilla” by David Kilcullen
Focuses on future security challenges in urban, coastal, and complex environments.

“Waging War Without Warriors? The Changing Culture of Military Conflict” by Christopher Coker
Discusses the evolution of warfare and how technology and ethics are redefining conflict.

“Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy” by John Arquilla & David Ronfeldt
A RAND study on how decentralized networks (terrorists, hackers) challenge nation-states.

“The Art of Military Innovation: Lessons from the Israel Defense Forces” by Emily Goldman
Explores how militaries adapt to unconventional threats.

“Small Wars, Far Away Places: Global Insurrection and the Making of the Modern World” by Michael Burleigh
Looks at post-WWII asymmetric conflicts and Western responses.

“Understanding Cyber Warfare: Politics, Policy and Strategy” by Christopher Whyte, Brian Mazanec, and Benjamin Jensen
An academic yet accessible guide to cyber conflict in the context of international security.