FULLTEXT01

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