FULLTEXT01

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TACTICAL THOUGHT 2014 September 29 th An overview of modern definitions Definitions Variables SW 2008 U.S. 2008 1. Strategy No Legitimacy and influence on population (s). 2. Tactics and Operational Art 3. Physical factors 4. Conceptual factors Guerrilla Warfare Indirect and asymmetrical approaches. U.S. 2009 No No NATO 2008 A weaker opponent’s Strategy. Economic, political, civil and cultural initiatives may be chief means. Unconventional, asymmetric, illegal methods and means. Terrorism, Insurgency, criminality, Guerrilla Warfare. No No No No No Network systems, fighting units in smaller groups. Full range of military and other capabilities. 5. Moral factors No Erode an adversary’s power, influence and will. 6. Character of activity 7. Attitude aspects 8. Explanatory description 9. Umbrella description 10. Addressing actors 11. Military focus 12. Political/ civilian focus Many actors are nongovernmental. A pattern of conflict. Guerrilla Warfare, armed gangs, terrorists. A violent struggle. UK 2009 Ideology or criminality. Strategy to affect or prevent change/challenge authority. Insurgency, Terrorism, criminality, disorder. No No Irregular forces, groups or individuals. No A broad form of conflict. Principal activities; Insurgency COIN unconventional warfare. To exhaust collective will. Protracted conflict. No No No No No Yes Yes Limited Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes The opponents. Yes, State and nonstate actors. No particular actors. The opponent. No Use or threat of force. The opponent. Limited Partly Predominantly Limited Limited Mostly Partly Partly implicit Mostly Mostly Figure 27. Appendix 1. An overview of modern definitions. 19
TACTICAL THOUGHT 2014 September 29 th Result and Comments The collection of contemporary doctrines and governmental writings from USA, UK, and NATO provides the following result. The UK, NATO and U.S. 2008 writings address strategy aspects in different ways. The Swedish writing and U.S. 2008 doctrine do not directly address strategy aspects. As for aspects concerning tactics and operational art, which are linked to strategy and to each other and not always strictly separable, the Swedish, the U.S. 2008, the NATO and the UK documents do highlight such aspects (in different words) though the clearest examples are in the NATO and UK writing (Insurgency, terrorism, criminality, disorder, Guerrilla Warfare). The 2009 U.S. doctrine does not mention the same/similar or other examples. Regarding physical factors no writings address this directly. As for conceptual factors, there are quite different examples given in the Swedish document (smaller groups in network systems) compared to the 2008 U.S. writings (full range of military and other capabilities). The 2009 U.S. document does not deal with conceptual descriptions at all. Nor does the NATO document, if one can understand labels such as terrorism being tactical/operational or strategy factors. The UK paper can be seen, like the Swedish one, to provide an image of both forces, groups, and more loosely formatted or independently operating individuals within the conceptual framework. As for addressing moral factors, only the U.S. 2008 and NATO paper give guidance. They differ however regarding content, where NATO only identifies the collective will as a target for an aggressor. The U.S. paper also includes the power and the influence as targets for an aggressor. When describing “character of activity” the papers do this in different ways, from the loose UK expression of; “use of threat of force”, the NATO; “protected conflict”, the U.S. 2008; “a violent struggle”, to the Swedish and U.S. 2009 different but clearer examples such as “Guerrilla Warfare”, “Insurgency”. One can notice that the Swedish writings and NATO 2008 use the term “Guerrilla Warfare”, which the U.S. and UK do not. As for attitude aspects, no writings deal with it. All writings except the U.S. 2009 can be seen as explanatory descriptions, identifying a field of violent activities, threatening the state and striving for influence over the population. These descriptions can also be seen as umbrella explanations of different aggressions against a legitimate state from non-governmental actors. The U.S. 2009 description can, on the contrary, be seen as an umbrella description also covering the defending activities for such aggressions (for example, “counterinsurgency”). This view differs from the UK, NATO and Swedish explanations, which only focus on the aggressors. As for the focus on military activities, the U.S. has a clearer focus. The other papers have more limited military focus addressing “terrorism”, “criminality”, “armed gangs”, which are usually in the area of concern for police forces. Conversely, as regards political focus on the subject of Irregular Warfare, the Swedish, NATO and UK writings express this more than the U.S. perspective. 20
Page 1 and 2:
National Defence University Departm
Page 3 and 4:
The Duality of Tactical Thought Maa
Page 6 and 7:
TACTICAL THOUGHT 2014 September 29
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115: TACTICAL THOUGHT 2014 September 29
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276:
National Defence University Departm
show all

FULLTEXT01

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?