FULLTEXT01

TACTICAL THOUGHT
2014 September 29 th
Sociological studies of spaces might generate arguments of field existences,
potentialities of a field emerging or declining or possible field characteristics (de facto
identified or assumed to have potentiality) and with that, I argue thus for the use of field
theory beyond the questions of field or not. It is however, wise to take into
consideration that quite some time is needed for both reading and understanding this
sort of thinking purely theoretically, and then a good proportion of time to also basically
learn and run computer aided correspondence analysis programs such as SPAD.
Such kinds of empirical work with sociology for identification of structuring patterns of
different phenomena, particularly within an area as difficult to measure as war and
warfare, belong to exploratory works in Swedish War Studies. This could however be
argued to be an appropriate approach for a young subject undergoing a process of
academic forming while finding its way as an autonomous discipline. The paradigms of
War Studies and military history, with their measuring focus of non-sociological and
technical aspects, as well as Strategic Studies with their way-finding between Security
Studies and International Relations, are all well-known. However, this is not the case
regarding the tradition of self-reflection. The result per se, of a stated diversified and
dualistic space of tactical thinking in Irregular Warfare might be of a more temporary
interest as a discussion platform in tactical education, such as an example of an argued
relational potentiality regarding tomorrow’s practical discussions and consequences for
land forces tactics.
That result could however, be argued to be of a wider interest in relation to strategy and
operational art. If new interests arose for such a change in this non-comprehensive state
of approach due to the results presented here, it would be an outcome that might
challenge values for certain actors. In such a case, power struggles might emerge in the
larger field of political-military thinking and practice. Using theories and methods that
can be attributed to constructionism generally, I argue that I have worked transparently
from my own ethos, have adapted some analytical tools relevant for analysing and
exploring possible positions of standpoints, relationship tendencies and sociological
characteristic structures. By this approach, I have been able to present new and
important information on the character of a subject not before researched in this manner.
The result of this methodology delivers a possibility to detect or uncover potential
power characteristics in the discourse of contemporary tactics in Irregular Warfare and
Counterinsurgency. This way of examining issues related to fighting structures might
however be of greater value than solely for use with the group of Swedish officers’
articulated preference of tactics. A traditional officer education with a limited relational
approach, risks repetitive work on subjects hiding or avoiding practical influence from
sociological perspectives. A relational approach is a way to challenge existing
paradigms and doxa taken for granted. Views of human practice and sense should
therefore be included to spark off a living, critical and creative theoretical and
methodological discussion for a subject such as War Studies.
124