FULLTEXT01

TACTICAL THOUGHT
2014 September 29 th
- The link between culture and religion is needed to be more emphasized in officer
education. It is important in Irregular Warfare.
Result summary; the answers resulted in 14 response groups where two dominate.
These two are related to the areas of "Tactics in general" (11 standpoints) and
"Education / training" (9 standpoints). Several other areas were addressed, all however,
to a limited extent. These areas were Capabilities (1), Politics / strategy (3), Violence
areas (1), Organization / division (3), Personnel skills (3), Unit activities (2),
Management / leadership (4), Civil interaction (1), Experiences (1) Other comments (3).
In general, regarding the area of tactics, a deeper and more analysed and reflected view
and discussion, from the unique Swedish perspective was addressed as being needed. In
the area of "Education / training", development efforts were addressed for all levels,
particularly highlighting the importance of extensive practice based on deep analysis of
lessons learned and experienced trainers.
Summary of the answers to the open-ended question
Question 6; “What does the concept of tactics mean to you” resulted in two major
areas of thinking. The first and dominant group (20 answers) describes a view of tactics
that can be generalized as; ”the use (or manoeuvre with, or coordination of, or
adaption) of units or resources to reach a specific goal”. In this category several
different articulations can be found. The other group (15 answers) contains aspects not
directly related to the overarching description such as; ” use of units for a certain goal”,
but as a way of thinking in general. These two views can be summarized with; “to use
practically” and; “to think about how to use” (units) or generalized as one practical and
one theoretical view.
Regarding question 7; views of one’s own thinking on the subject of tactics, three
categories can be generalized. Twenty-four officers, who are about half the total sample,
state a rather traditional way of thinking, mainly influenced by Regular Warfare
thinking. The two other categories can be described as containing a more generic and
wider analytical approach, as a more direct Irregular Warfare tactics perspective.
Generalized it can be said that a more direct Regular Warfare perspective is common,
whether as a wider generic approach or a more direct Irregular Warfare approach.
Question 13; “Do you often discuss tactics with your colleagues and commanding
officers” resulted in 38 replies (of 43 possible) distributed mainly over two larger
groups of 15 statements each. The "Yes group” contained one mechanized battalion
commanding officer and one amphibious rifle company commanding officer, saying
they often discussed tactics with subordinates, but not with their senior commanders.
This group also included one armoured company commanding officer and one
amphibious battalion commanding officer; contradictably saying that they discussed
tactics mainly with the senior commanders. The "No group” contained 15 statements of
which two said that they discussed tactics during international missions.
14