FULLTEXT01

TACTICAL THOUGHT
2014 September 29 th
A rather consistent way of thinking exists with a self-image of field or troop officer,
thinking tactics as a combination of theory and practice, and with a basic offensive
mind-set. Skills and knowledge in Regular Warfare for national defence needs are
higher prioritized than skills in Irregular Warfare for multinational operations. Focus is
on troops rather than technical aspects, with an ambition to lead and develop tactics for
larger units (battalion structures rather than specialized company formations).
The officers’ general reflections on tactics in Irregular Warfare 192 can be characterized
by expressions mostly regarding conceptual aspects, including capability and functional
area aspects, for example, Intelligence. Broader aspects such as military and civilian
relations, education and training, leadership and mind-set are addressed only on a few
occasions. Even if many of the articulations correspond to general current COIN
standards, views still exist with a more Regular Warfare mind-set. A major aspect in
thinking relates to new or other demands in command and functional thinking, for
example, Intelligence, Psychological Operations and Electronic Warfare. A minor
number of officers emphasized Regular Warfare capabilities.
As for war fighting capabilities, moral and conceptual factors (or combined) are in
focus, as opposed to physical factors. A common view of tactics in Irregular Warfare
and Counterinsurgency is a focus on Guerrilla Warfare, in contrast to lower violence
areas such as subversion and terrorism. Regarding conceptual views, a unified focus on
basic battalion structures with additional special functions, capable of operating in task
group structures is evident. Tactics in Irregular Warfare is viewed to have a low priority
in the Swedish Armed Forces. Quite a common view however, is that development of
tactics for Irregular Warfare is needed and important.
The Main result; the model of the Swedish space of statements of thought on tactics in
Irregular Warfare consists of a two-by-two generic model of tactical types. 193 This
model provides an inter-subjective constructed structure of the space of statements. The
tactical types are labelled and broadly explained as follows: 1) Regular Warfare; ranger
tactics with focus on military tasks, smaller and larger units and reconnaissance: 2)
Regular Warfare; mechanized tactics with focus on military tasks, larger units, and
combat: 3) Irregular/Hybrid Warfare: infantry tactics focused on mixed military and
civilian tasks, smaller and larger units, reconnaissance and combat: and finally, 4)
Irregular/Hybrid Warfare: mechanized tactics focused on military and civilian tasks,
larger units and combat. These tactical types are suggested as the content of the space of
statements, mainly constructed with two perspectives; contextual and conceptual. The
investigated sample distributes quite equally over the types 2, 3 and 4. A certain weight
can be noted for type 1.
Sociological structures of background factors positioned in the space of statements are
possible to identify. 194 . Unit affiliation (regimental culture and traditions) and Unit
background distribute most clearly. Unit affiliation and background show correlation
regarding ranger and infantry affiliation, background and tactical thinking.
192 pp. 62-63. The result regarding general reflection on tactics in Irregular Warfare.
193 p. 75. The result in the form of a model of the distribution of standpoints.
194 pp. 78-84. Result of background factor structures in the space of statements.
101