How to take the asymmetry out of asymmetric war

On this Memorial Day, it is particularly relevant to make the case again as to why the terms asymmetric and hybrid are misplaced in examining war. 

To be absolutely clear, unless led by incompetents, all wars are fought with attempts to exploit asymmetric advantages. They are also all hybrid in the sense that they use old means in new ways or new means and tactics to achieve the goals of the war.  

During the Battle of France in 1940, the British and French had superiority in the quality of and quantity of weapons. But the Germans cheated with Blitzkrieg and circumvented the Maginot Line by attacking through relatively undefended Holland and Belgium.

The Japanese thought that a quick knockout blow of the Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbor would compel an isolationist America to capitulate. Had the aircraft carriers been in port and sunk by the attack, we might be speaking Japanese today in Washington. But they were not.

The North Vietnamese and Afghan Taliban were militarily naked compared to the U.S. and its allies. Both won by not losing, despite huge military asymmetries. Unmanned drones or uncrewed weapons are neither new nor necessarily asymmetric with one major exception: the use of uncrewed air, sea or subsurface vehicles. Does it have strategic value?  

In the case of the West, uncrewed vehicles have tactical and operational value by providing greater distributed lethality and........

© The Hill