FULLTEXT01

TACTICAL THOUGHT
2014 September 29 th
Halhlweg uses the term Guerrilla Warfare as a cover for resistance, insurgency and a
complement to Regular Warfare. Kitson and Thompson use the terms subversion and
Insurgency as overarching terms for non-armed respectively armed violence/attacks on
the government. McCuen´s “Counter-revolutionary Warfare” covers; Counter
Organization, Counter Terrorism, Counter Guerrilla Warfare and Counter Mobile
Warfare. Trinquir uses the term “Modern Warfare” as an umbrella term for Irregular
Warfare. Galula, Kitson, Thompson and Trinquir address both sides of the struggle.
Hahlweg mostly focuses on the irregular side and McCuen vice versa, on the defenders’
side. All experts write with a clear focus on the military activities, with Thompson
primarily viewing the strategic horizon and Hahlweg the tactical perspective. Trinquir
addresses the military perspective predominantly in contrast to Thompson, who
predominantly focuses on political/civilian perspectives, such as organization and
administration. This is followed by McCuen, who conversely has a military focus.
Galula views these perspectives equally for both parties where Trinquir and Kitson
mostly write from the aggressors’ perspective.
Answers to the three questions
The first question; “How is the form of warfare, labelled Irregular Warfare defined and
explained” can be summarized in general, despite different names, to be understood as
including different forms of uprisings (revolutionary or against an occupier) or a
complement to Regular Warfare. A specific character of this form of violence is stated
to include the lower span – from subversion and sabotage via terrorism and Guerrilla
Warfare with classic ingredients such as flank attacks and harassment to mobile
warfare. The political aspect of the struggle with vital needs for support from the people
is often highlighted. Means and methods are physically very different from the actual
forms or military Regular Warfare. A main character is that military force and seeking
the decisive battle is not a goal or possibility here. Both actions from irregulars and
against such enemies are included. All descriptions focus on Irregular Warfare as a
specific form of warfare, excluding Hahlweg, who includes such explanations as a
complement to Regular Warfare.
The second question; “What is said to distinguish Irregular Warfare from other forms of
warfare” can be summarized with following aspects mentioned in the texts; limited
physical strength, crushing of social structures, room-aspect, the human perspective, the
anonymous fight, high versatility and different forms of tactics are factors argued as
being different from Regular Warfare. The power and brutal consequences of terror and
involving the “people” in this sort of warfare differs from Regular Warfare performed
by soldiers, only because of higher levels of moral and ethical behaviour and standards.
Another difference is stated to be a generally low interest from the military side in this
form of warfare. The almost complete focus on ground combat differs from the Regular
Warfare focus, which is on joint operations.
51