FULLTEXT01

TACTICAL THOUGHT
2014 September 29 th
In Sweden, however, the first normative text also including descriptions of Irregular
Warfare and COIN was published in 2010 184 . Work on tactical field manuals and
regulations started in Sweden from 2008. 185
A Diverging and Dual Result
The question; how does the descriptive result of tactical thought compare with current
normative standards for Counterinsurgency operations is answered the following way.
In broad terms, it is suggested that the examined normative texts outline tactical
thinking based on broader military-civilian task context thinking, with capability
requirements for smaller, as well as larger units, not only intelligence focused but
clearly also with offensive combat capabilities.
Regarding contextual thinking, normative standards are positioned at the lower part of
the model, described as a Hybrid Warfare context. As for conceptual thinking, a
position of the normative texts is found on the left side in the model, focusing on
smaller as well as larger unit operations, combining intelligence and combat tasks. The
result is subsequently interpreted as a Swedish tactical preference, more diverse and
only partly corresponding to normative standards for Counterinsurgency operations.
Background to the result – four questions on COIN tactics
Following a dialogue with the Swedish Army Ground Combat School
(Markstridsskolan, MSS), several specific questions of interest arose during May 2011
and a study was initiated. Four of these questions are included in this extract, focusing
on primarily conceptual and contextual aspects of tactics in Counterinsurgency
operations. The questions were the following;
1. What characterizes the description of the Insurgency movements to be analysed
and understood (e.g. systems thinking and the concept of Centre of Gravity) This
question can be characterized as a contextual question with emphasis on analysis
needs because of a broader threat perspective (Question 2 in the appendix).
2. What characterizes the description of the insurgency movements to be affected
(e.g. effects thinking, the concept of Effects Based Approach of Operations and
Targeting) This question can be characterized as a contextual question, with
focus on how to deal with Insurgency in general; for example with primarily civil
or military means, and with kinetic or non-kinetic effects, which require other
resources compared to those in Regular Warfare (Question 3 in the appendix).
184 Militärstrategisk doktrin 2011 med doktrinära grunder (MSD 12) (2011).
185 Reglemente för Markoperationer, (RMO) (2009) is one example.
94