FULLTEXT01

TACTICAL THOUGHT
2014 September 29 th
The most observable result is that unit type, backgrounds and affiliation follow the
value/capital structure according to axis 1 for ranger and infantry unit officers, however,
not regarding officers with a mechanized background. In all, it can be said that
distributions of different value possessions can be identified, but also that some
indications are difficult to analyse. The result does however show that background
factors, with different value recognitions can be found structured in various patterns,
also in the space of statements referring to tactics in Irregular Warfare. Such analysis
has not yet been a part of Swedish War Studies traditions.
The space of tactical thought as statements 180 obtained by the sample of field
commanders contains several different structural indications. We can identify different
tactical preferences in the same context (of Irregular Warfare) that are possible to link to
different sociological aspects. We can connect to a generalized value structure, and
identify certain distribution trends of background factors, all in the same space of
statements. Difficulties in the ability to draw conclusions do however exist. The
structure of the space of statements has stronger data support than the background factor
ones. Nonetheless, differences in tactical preferences have been shown, as indications of
background factor structuring signs in a value/capital context. Differences exist, and
differences matter, especially when values are questioned and threatened. It is a
commonly known fact that frictions and struggles occur when economic interests clash
with different values of tactics and unit development needs. Potentiality for interest
struggles is also of obvious importance for launching new ideas and creative
development enterprises.
The Bourdieu concept of field is possible to be used to discuss differences in
standpoints and relations to background factors connected to properties which can
reveal characteristics of the space. Two perspectives thus emerge. First, if the space of
standpoints can be argued to contain some relational characteristics. In this case, the aim
is to identify social groupings sharing the same values that oppose other groupings. In
short, if relational structures can be indicated and their properties identified. In such a
case, indications of a potentiality for tactical development struggles are possible to be
described. The previous discussion identified properties relating to unit types,
backgrounds and affiliation and international experiences of certain character, with a
distribution of certain tactical types. However, the character of the sample consisting of
field officers working hard with current unit training, production and structural
transformation, is probably less likely to generate time consuming interest struggles in
tactics.
180 The space of statements is described as follows. Axis 1; Two different ranges of tactical thought,
mainly with equal focus on larger or smaller, or a more distinct focus on smaller units. Distributed tactics
with a combination of reconnaissance and combat concepts/capabilities are prioritized. Opposite, we find
larger units collectively operating with a clearer combat conceptual focus. These variations are argued to
belong to the conceptual sphere of thinking (or capability needs; “how to act”). Axis 2; Two different
ranges of tactical thought are identified. The first; regarding thought of primarily military tasks and
kinetic effects. Secondly; a broader thought of military and civilian tasks or mainly of civilian tasks. Here,
the focus is on non-kinetic or a combination of kinetic and non-kinetic effects. These positions are
suggested to belong to a contextual sphere of thinking (or in terms of operational/tactical environment;
“where to act”).
88