“At a seminar on the subject of NATO and its future evolution, the basic premise was that the global situation had changed significantly and NATO must adjust if we are to succeed collectively in an era of instability. A number of high-ranking general officers in key NATO posts, respected academics and thinkers on military affairs were in attendance. One therefore would have reasonable grounds to consider this a useful gathering of the “wise-men” to ponder the outlines of how we might adjust our approach. The discussion proceeded apace until Mike Bullock threw out a basic question: “Why would we even consider fighting an asymmetric situation with conventional forces?” This was met by silence. There was a similar silence for the solution offered: that we shun, in its entirety the employment of conventional forces against an asymmetric threat. Instead, we seize back the initiative and use similar tactics to the opposition’s, which are better suited to the operational environment. In short, we use unconventional forces against unconventional forces. Not one particular kind, but the full panoply of outfits, such as the British Special Air Forces, Canada’s Joint Task Force 2 and the US Army Rangers. They would engage with long-range patrols, commando raids and airmobile raids. The key point is that we would engage with anything other visible boots on the ground.”