The Relevance of Clausewitz’s Theory with Fourth Generation Warfare in the Context of Asymmetrical Wars
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55927/sospolbud.v4i1.13650Keywords:
Clausewitz, Fourth Generation Warfare, Asymmetrical Wars, Non-State Actors, Military Strategy, Modern ConflictsAbstract
This article explores the relevance of Clausewitz's theory of warfare with the concept of Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW) in the context of asymmetrical wars. Clausewitz, in his work On War, focuses on war as a continuation of politics by other means, while 4GW introduces a more complex approach involving non-state actors, asymmetrical tactics, and blurred political goals. This study employs a descriptive qualitative method with a literature review approach to analyze how Clausewitz's theory remains significant in understanding modern conflicts characterized by the dynamics of fourth-generation warfare. Through the analysis of literature on 4GW and Clausewitz's theory, this paper aims to reveal the connection between traditional strategies and contemporary challenges, and how military doctrines can be adapted to asymmetrical warfare contexts.
Downloads
References
Anderson, S. J. (2016). Hypothesizing a cyber-power targeting theory. In Airpower lessons for an air force cyber-power targeting theory (pp. 87–130). Air University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep13774.13
Arasli, J. (2011). States vs. Non-State Actors: Asymmetric Conflict of the 21st Century and Challenges to Military Transformation. INEGMA, Mar.
Bassiouni, M. C. (2008). The new wars and the crisis of compliance with the law of armed conflict by non-state actors.
The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 98(3), 711–810. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40042787
Beyerchen, A. (1992). Clausewitz, nonlinearity, and the unpredictability of war. International Security, 17(3), 59–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539130
Bungin, B. (2015). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif: Aktualisasi Metodologis ke Arah Ragam Varian Kontemporer. Rajawali Pers.
Čajić, J. (2016). The Relevance of Clausewitz's Theory of War to Contemporary Conflict Resolution. Connections, 15(1), 72-78.
Echevarria, A. J. (2005). FOURTH-GENERATION WAR AND OTHER MYTHS. Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep11404
Forest, J. J. F. (2009). Influence Warfare and Modern Terrorism. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 10(1), 81–89. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43134193
Hardiago, D., & Syafrinaldi, S. (2022). Terorisme Dan Pemasyarakatan: Problem Hukum Pendidikan Deradikalisasi Bagi Terpidana Terorisme Di Indonesia. JKIH: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum, 1(2), 146-175.
Haugstvedt, H., & Jacobsen, J. O. (2020). Taking Fourth-Generation Warfare to the Skies? An Empirical Exploration of Non-State Actors’ Use of Weaponized Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs—‘Drones’). Perspectives on Terrorism, 14(5), 26–40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26940037
Herberg-Rothe, A. (2007). Clausewitz’s “wondrous trinity” as general theory of war and violent conflict. Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, 114, 48–73. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41802382
Hsieh, W. W.-S. (2011). Total war and the American Civil War reconsidered: The end of an outdated “master narrative.” Journal of the Civil War Era, 1(3), 394–408. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26070141
Indonesia, B. P. P. (2015). Jakarta: Kementerian Pertahanan Republik Indonesia.
KISS, P. A. (2014). A new paradigm of war: Generations in warfare and wars amongst the people. In Winning wars amongst the people: Case studies in asymmetric conflict (pp. 17–35). University of Nebraska Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1d9nkf0.8
Lele, A. (2014). Asymmetric warfare: A state vs non-state conflict. Oasis, 20, 97–111.
Linn, B. M. (2011). The U.S. Armed Forces’ View of War. Daedalus, 140(3), 33–44. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23047346
Meilinger, P. S. (2007). Busting the icon: Restoring balance to the influence of Clausewitz. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 1(1), 116–145. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26268387
Moleong, L. J. (2018). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Remaja Rosdakarya.
Ningsih, R., & Nurbaiti. (2024). Ancaman perang modern dalam perspektif hukum humaniter. Siyasah: Jurnal Hukum Tata Negara, 3(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.32332/siyasah.v4i1
Paret, P., Craig, G. A., & Gilbert, F. (1986). Clausewitz. In P. Paret (Ed.), Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age (pp. 186–214). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv8xnhvw.11v
Putri, S. D., & Wahyudi, F. E. (2019). Cyber terrorism: Strategi propaganda dan rekrutmen ISIS di Internet dan dampaknya bagi Indonesia tahun 2014-2019. Journal of International Relations Universitas Diponegoro, 5(4), 827-833.
Saint-Amour, P. K. (2014). On the Partiality of Total War. Critical Inquiry, 40(2), 420–449. https://doi.org/10.1086/674121
Schnaufer, T. A. (2017). Redefining Hybrid Warfare: Russia’s Non-linear War against the West. Journal of Strategic Security, 10(1), 17–31. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26466892
Silalahi, U. (2006). Metode penelitian sosial.
Simons, G. (2010). Fourth-generation warfare and the clash of civilizations. Journal of Islamic Studies, 21(3), 391–412. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26200766
Stoker, D., & Whiteside, C. (2020). Blurred lines: Gray-zone conflict and hybrid war—Two failures of American strategic thinking. Naval War College Review, 73(1), 12–48. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26868211
Sugiyono. (2016). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Alfabeta.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “Foreign Terrorist Fighters,” Terrorism Prevention, 2021, https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/terrorism/expertise/foreign-terrorist-fighters.html
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2010). The globalization of crime: A transnational organized crime threat assessment. United Nations Publications.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Hizkia Dicken Dirgantara, Priyanto Priyanto

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.