Asymmetric warfare can be fought at different levels and can take different forms. There is an operational level (including ruses, covert operations, perfidy, terrorism, etc.), a military strategic level (guerrilla warfare, massive retaliation, Blitzkrieg, etc.) and a political strategic level (moral or religious war, clash of cultures). The different forms include asymmetry of power, means, methods, organization, values and time. Terrorist tactics, such as hijackings and suicide bombings, are also considered to be asymmetrical, both because they tend to involve a smaller, weaker group attacking a stronger one and also because attacks on civilians are by definition one-way warfare.

Causes of Terrorism

Psychological Perspective – Those who engage in terrorism may do so for purely personal reasons, based on their own psychological state of mind. Their motivation may be nothing more

than hate or the desire for power. For example, in 1893 Auguste Vaillant bombed the French Chamber of Deputies. Prior to his conviction and subsequent execution Vaillant explained his motivation in terms of hate for the middle classes. Vaillant wanted to spoil the sense of economic and social success, by tainting it with his violence.

Ideological Perspective – Ideology is defined as the beliefs, values, and/or principles by which a group identifies its particular aims and goals. Ideology may encompass religion or political philosophies and programs. Examples of terrorist groups motivated by ideology include the Irish Republican Army (IRA), in Sri Lanka the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), and the Bader Meinhoff in Germany. The IRA is motivated by a political program to oust the United Kingdom from Ireland and unite Ireland under one flag. Similarly the LTTE seek to establish a separate state for their people, the Tamils in Sri Lanka.

Strategic Perspective – Terrorism is sometimes seen as a logical extension of the failure of politics. When people seek redress of their grievances through government, but fail to win government’s attention to their plight, they may resort to violence. From this viewpoint, terrorism is the result of a logical analysis of the goals and objectives of a group, and their estimate of the likelihood of gaining victory. If victory seems unlikely using more traditional means of opposition, then one might calculate that terrorism is a better option. For example, in South Africa the African National Congress only turned to the use of terrorism after political avenues were explored and failed. Of course, not just individuals may feel let down by the political process. States may use terrorists in the pursuit of their own strategic interests. States may sponsor terrorist groups, especially when the objectives of the state and the terrorist group are similar. For example, Libya used terrorists to explode a bomb aboard Pan Am 103 flying from London to  New York in 1988, allegedly in response to U.S. and British bombing of Libya.

Attacks carried out in different corners of the world by Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the Islamic State, Al-Shabaab, and similar terror outfits, are very different from those witnessed in the previous century. The tactics employed may vary, but the objective is common, viz. achieving mass casualties and widespread destruction.

Challenges in trying to win the war on terrorism includes

• rising inequalities across the globe
• easier access to marginalised people by radical and terrorists groups through social media
• dark net, etc,
• new means of funding by using crypto currencies
• new form terror attacks e.g. lone wolf
• inter-ethnic inter-religious conflicts like Rohingyas in Myanmar, Palestine crisis, etc.
• Lack of international cooperation also weakens the fight against terrorism e.g. lack of adoption of single definition of terrorism as proposed by India many times.