Meaning: The quote by Otto Schily, a German politician and former public servant, reflects the evolving nature of warfare in the modern era. Schily's assertion that traditional criteria for determining the use of military force are no longer sufficient speaks to the complexities and nuances of contemporary conflicts. By referencing the asymmetrical nature of the war in Afghanistan, Schily highlights the shift from conventional warfare between nation-states to engagements with non-state actors and transnational threats. This quote underscores the need for a reevaluation of traditional paradigms and a rethinking of military strategies in response to evolving global challenges.

In the past, the decision to use military force was often guided by clear criteria such as a direct threat to national security, the existence of a formal declaration of war, or the presence of identifiable enemy forces. However, the nature of conflict has undergone significant transformation in recent decades, challenging the applicability of these classic criteria. The rise of non-state actors, such as terrorist organizations, and the increasing interconnectedness of global security threats have blurred the lines between traditional notions of war and peace.

The mention of Afghanistan as an example of asymmetrical warfare is particularly relevant. The conflict in Afghanistan, which began in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, has been characterized by the presence of insurgent groups, such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, operating in a decentralized and elusive manner. These groups do not conform to the traditional model of uniformed enemy forces representing a sovereign state. Instead, they operate as clandestine networks, blending into civilian populations and utilizing asymmetric tactics to challenge the military capabilities of conventional armies.

Schily's reference to the enemies in Afghanistan as "criminals instead of soldiers" underscores the complexity of identifying and engaging with adversaries in asymmetrical warfare. This characterization reflects the challenge of applying traditional rules of engagement and targeting to combatants who do not adhere to the conventions of international law. The distinction between combatants and non-combatants becomes increasingly blurred in asymmetrical warfare, raising ethical and legal dilemmas for military operations.

Moreover, the quote suggests that the traditional dichotomy between war and law enforcement is becoming increasingly obsolete. The use of military force in response to non-traditional security threats has led to a convergence of military and law enforcement strategies. This convergence has implications for the conduct of military operations, the protection of human rights, and the application of legal frameworks in conflict zones.

In light of these complexities, Schily's assertion implies the need for a more nuanced and adaptive approach to decision-making regarding the use of military force. It calls for a reevaluation of the criteria and considerations that govern the initiation and conduct of armed interventions in an era defined by asymmetrical threats and non-state actors.

In conclusion, Otto Schily's quote captures the evolving nature of warfare and the challenges it poses to traditional paradigms of military decision-making. The shift towards asymmetrical warfare, exemplified by the conflict in Afghanistan, highlights the inadequacy of classic criteria in determining the appropriateness of military force. This quote prompts a critical examination of the evolving nature of conflict and the need for responsive and adaptable strategies to address contemporary security challenges.