FULLTEXT01

TACTICAL THOUGHT
2014 September 29 th
The whole area of tactics in Irregular Warfare is mainly thought of to have a low
priority in the Swedish Armed Forces, however, a rather common view does exist that
development of such tactics is needed and important.
Conceptual and Contextual thinking perspectives – A Discussion of the
result
The overall result of the open questions reveal battalion and company commanding
officers’ collective and diversified articulations of tactics in general, as well as on
tactics in Irregular Warfare. Two main views exist on tactics per se, either as a label for
the practical use of units for a specific goal, or as a label for methods to solve military
problems, giving different approaches to discussing tactics. In combination with the
dominant Regular Warfare influence, as a more generic and wider analytical approach,
or a more direct Irregular Warfare tactics perspective, different approaches might evolve
when discussing and communicating the subject. Opinions on primary influences on
tactical thinking concerned several different areas, which is why the possible discourse
is growing.
A unifying view can nonetheless be noticed regarding the stated importance of practical
experiences and exercises. However, if opportunities for practice of command decline,
different views might evolve around other unifying aspects. A clear interest even so, is a
common message regarding tactics compared to that of strategy and operational art. If
however this is not communicated to any substantial part as indicated, tactical thinking
development risks degradation. Views on how important development influences tactics
and thinking, relating to experiences and influences from past wars, support an opinion
of the importance of real life practice, also in a larger context. The few opinions on
influences for development of tactics and tactical thinking regarding education support
the above opinion. In summary, different opinions exist concerning understanding of the
subject of tactics per se, doubtless with a main influence from the long tradition of
Regular Warfare tactics. Turning to the more demarcated area of tactics in Irregular
Warfare, it is mainly seen as a lower prioritized area of tactics. General expressions
concern conceptual aspects including capability and functional area aspects, for
example, intelligence. This indicates a traditional Regular Warfare mind-set, mentioned
above. The more limited highlighting of broader aspects, such as military and civilian
relations, education and training, leadership and mind-set, supports this view.
However, indications are also clear about the existence of several, if not coherent, views
that correspond to current COIN thinking. One such example is the emphasis on
thinking related to new or other demands in command and function areas, such as
Intelligence, Psychological Operation (PSYOPS) and Electronic Warfare (EW). As for
thinking about conceptual solutions, contextual thinking intermingles and it is not
possible to demarcate strictly. An apparent focus on moral aspects in Irregular Warfare
contexts puts several demands on unit concepts with capabilities other than in Regular
Warfare. One such example is intelligence analysis, aiming for targeting precision and
hidden enemy identifications.
63