Asymmetric warfare: A research agenda looking at epistemological based or not

Personally, I thought that FM-3-24 was designed to give us the terminology that was missing. I kind of agree with the author about the lack of good terms, but it is still evolving and changing as the Military learns to handle the curves thrown at it by the terrorists. And the Liberals.

Asymmetric warfare: A research agenda looking at epistemological based or not: "I know that the FM-3-24 discusses these in detail, but where is the agreed upon breadth of research to back up the assertions of the discipline. The military likes to embody concepts and ideas into people. So, and so, was the father of this or that. Great, and big thinkers are important. Einstein though was writing in response to a problem the physics world had at the time. He was trying to answer his disciplines big questions.

I am not here to solve all the problems that the advancement of COIN and Asymmetric warfare practices would necessitate for the rigor of science. In one part I am simply the observer, but in the other part I am deeply interested in the results. In my research the complex issues of national treaties and boundaries overlay the issues of a world wide telecommunications infrastructure. This begets the problem that all computer network attacks are going to be asymmetric in nature and many of the principles of counter insurgency are going to be required.

The fourth and fifth generation warfare communities could claim that they have accomplished at least some of the tasks of starting a science. Some soldiers will say that military science covers the needed terrain of thought well enough. I think though that counter insurgency is at odds with the hammer of science and axe of the arts. Somewhere in between the differing worlds consensus can be found. I think of the military activity as an applied science or closer to my skill set as a technologist. Likely indigestion or my own ego inflating my specialty as a technologists."