Science, Strategy and War The Strategic Theory of ... - Boekje Pienter

in weakening the opponent’s will to resist as well as augmenting moral strength 44 . In Patternsof Conflict Boyd includes the idea of a good cause as a strategic asset in his own adviseconcerning grand strategy, an idea he would expand upon in The Strategic Game of ? and ? in asection titled ‘A Moral Design for Grand Strategy’.Next comes strategy which has as its purpose not to overcome resistance but todiminish the possibility of enemy resistance and it seeks to fulfill this purpose by exploitingthe elements of movement and surprise 45 . Strategy has for its purpose the reduction offighting to the slenderest possible proportions 46 . Even if the decisive battle be the goal, theaim of strategy must be to bring about this battle under the most advantageouscircumstances. And the more advantageous the circumstances, the less, proportionally, willbe the fighting. The perfection of strategy would be, therefore, to produce a decision without any seriousfighting 47 . For the aim of a nation is generally not seeking destruction but maintenance of itssecurity and that aim is fulfilled if the threat is removed, if the enemy is led to abandon hispurpose 48 . The aim of a strategist is not so much to seek battle as to seek a strategic situation soadvantageous that if it does not of itself produce the decision, its continuation by a battle is sure to achieve this.In other words, dislocation is the aim of strategy, its sequel may be either the enemy's dissolution or hiseasier disruption in battle 49 . Dissolution may involve some partial measure of fighting, but thishas not the character of a battle.In the psychological sphere, dislocation is the result of the impression on thecommander’s mind of the physical effects just listed. The impression is strongly accentuatedif his realization of his being at a disadvantage is sudden and if he feels that he is unable tocounter the enemy’s move. Psychological dislocation fundamentally springs from this sense of beingtrapped. This is the reason why this feeling often follows an enemy move against one’s rear.The brain is much more sensitive to any menace to its back. In contrast, a move directly onan opponent consolidates his balance, physical and psychological, and it thus increases hisresisting power. Thus, Liddell Hart argues, a move around the enemy’s front against his rearhas the aim not only of avoiding resistance on its way but in its issue. In the profoundestsense, it takes the line of least resistance. However, as this is known to any enemy that is worthhis mettle, this move needs to be combined with the equivalent in the psychological sphere;an attack along the line of least expectation 50 . Tempo also comes into play here. Movementgenerates surprise and surprise gives impetus to movement, for a movement which isaccelerated or changes its direction inevitably carries with it a degree of surprise whilesurprise smoothes the path of movement by hindering the enemy’s counter measures andcounter movements 51 .The moves against the enemy’s rear or the threat of it have the purpose ofdistraction in the sense that it is meant to deprive the enemy of his freedom of action. Itshould cause a distention of his forces or their diversion to unprofitable ends, so that theyare too widely distributed and too committed elsewhere to have the power of interferingwith one’s own decisively intended move. In the psychological sphere the same effect is44 Ibid, pp.321-322.45 Ibid, p.323.46 Ibid, p.324.47 Ibid, my emphasis.48 Ibid, p.325.49 Ibid, my emphasis partly.50 Ibid, p.327. Emphasize in original. Here we see Liddell Hart outlining an idea similar to the conceptof Ch'i and Cheng; the unorthodox and the orthodox and the idea of shaping the opponent, as will beexplained in more detail below.51 Ibid.54