David Isenberg is an analyst at DynMeridian. He is also an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and an associate fellow at the Matthew B.Ridgway Center for International Security Studies at the University of Pittsburgh.The views expressed here are his own. He is a regular commentator for IntellectualCapital.com.

Several days ago, U.S. planes again were landing at Dover Air Force Base, bringing back the bodies of U.S. military personnel killed in the Middle East. In the past, it has been Marines in Lebanon or Air Force personnel at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. This time, it was Navy sailors aboard the USS Cole.

It is shocking, horrifying, disgusting, and maddening. Depending on whose account you read, it was either an act of terrorism or an act of war. But should it be a surprise? No. It was entirely predictable. It was, in fact, an example of asymmetric warfare.

Asymmetrical warfare of the future

For several years now, military leaders and defense analysts have been warning of the emergence of a new way of war. No longer could we expect opponents to stupidly fight the United States on its own terms, conventional military versus conventional military, as Saddam Hussein did in 1991.

Simply put, asymmetric warfare can be described, as the National Defense University does, as "a version of not 'fighting fair,' which can include the use of surprise in all its operational and strategic dimensions and the use of weapons in ways unplanned by the United States." If you prefer a metaphor, think of the United States as a Goliath that can be sorely wounded by the technological equivalent of a stone from David's sling.

Many analysts have focused on the prospect of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or information warfare being used against U.S. forces or civilian society in future conflicts. Indeed, in the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm, an Indian general commented that the war showed that in the future, any state wanting to fight the United States should have nuclear weapons.

Given the United States' overwhelming advantage in military capabilities in the world today -- what military wonks call an "asymmetry in capabilities" -- it can be taken as gospel that future opponents will look to fight asymmetrically. As the Pentagon's Joint Vision 2020, the Joint Chiefs of Staff concept of the future for the Defense Department, puts it, "We have superior conventional war-fighting capabilities and effective nuclear deterrence today, but this favorable military balance is not static. In the face of such strong capabilities, the appeal of asymmetric approaches and the focus on the development of niche capabilities will increase.

"By developing and using approaches that avoid U.S. strengths and exploit potential vulnerabilities using different methods of operation, adversaries will attempt to create conditions that effectively delay, deter or counter the application of U.S. military capabilities. The potential of such asymmetric approaches is perhaps the most serious danger the United States faces in the immediate future."

Terrorism: the chosen weapon of the weak

Though fighting asymmetrically is hardly new -- think Vietnam, or Somalia in 1993, or Iraq since 1991 -- the forms that it can take change over time. Terrorism, of course, is an easy asymmetric response. And it is not as if we did not know it could or would be used.

Last September, the U.S. Commission on National Security, in its Phase 1 report, wrote: "Future terrorists will probably be even less hierarchically organized, and yet better networked, than they are today. Their diffuse nature will make them more anonymous, yet their ability to coordinate mass effects on a global basis will increase.

"Teamed with states in a regional contingency, they could become the 'ultimate fifth column.' Terrorism will appeal to many weak states as an attractive asymmetric option to blunt the influence of major powers."

It gets worse. The report also noted, "The growing resentment against Western culture and values in some parts of the world -- as well as the fact that others often perceive the United States as exercising its power with arrogance and self-absorption -- is breeding a backlash that can take many forms. Terrorism, however, appears to be most potentially lethal of such forms. Therefore, the United States should assume that it will be a target of terrorist attacks against its homeland using weapons of mass destruction. The United States will be vulnerable to such strikes."

Think World Trade Center, only many, many times worse. Indeed, remember that just a few months ago the National Commission on Terrorism released its report noting that "international terrorism poses an increasingly dangerous and difficult threat to America. This was underscored by the December 1999 arrests in Jordan and at the U.S./Canadian border of foreign nationals who were allegedly planning to attack crowded millennium celebrations.

"Today's terrorists seek to inflict mass casualties, and they are attempting to do so both overseas and on American soil. They are less dependent on state sponsorship and are, instead, forming loose, transnational affiliations based on religious or ideological affinity and a common hatred of the United States. This makes terrorist attacks more difficult to detect and prevent."

Paying the price of global hegemony

The fault is really our own. We have become so used to the Clinton administration's way of warfare, via airpower and cruise missiles carefully calibrated with the latest poll data, and all the talk about the "revolution in military affairs" that we have forgotten that conducting an interventionist foreign policy, especially a half-hearted and fitful one, has real consequences. And, to a far too large extent, military leaders are still fixated on fighting the war they want to fight rather than the one they will have to fight.

Can we do anything to prevent terrorist attacks? Not really. Oh, we can probably raise the costs and make it more difficult. Better intelligence analysis and coordination might help, as would hardening targets (though the USS Cole was as hardened as it was going to get). We also could raise the stakes by instituting a policy stating that terrorist strikes against American forces or the homeland will provoke a declaration of war against those who use or sponsor it.

But if someone really is willing to meet their maker in order to attack you, chances are they will succeed. In short, if you want to be a global hegemony you have to be prepared to pay the price. Better get used to terrorist attacks like those in Yemen; unfortunately, it probably will not be the last time.