STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
A PROFUSE AND ABSTRUSE MILITARY LITERATURE
“In forming the plan of
a campaign, it is requisite to foresee everything the enemy may do, and
be prepared with the necessary means to counteract it. Plans of the
campaign may be modified ad infinitum according to the circumstances,
the genius of the general, the character of the troops, and the features
of the country.”
Napoleon [1]
Policy, geopolitics, geo-strategy, strategy, doctrine,
tactics and course of action are expressions most often misused and overused,
not only by the military but also by civilians. “The company policy”, “the
geo-strategy of the media”, “the strategic management”, “the tactics of the
national soccer team”, etc… are examples of the use of these terms.
Having utilized these terms
throughout my military career, I realized how unclear was for me the meaning
of strategy and doctrine in relation with the other words. I reached then the
conclusion summarized by Socrates: « I know that I know nothing
». The profusion of theories, through the information and communication
technology added to the certainties of some civilian and military leaders
made my indistinctness of intellectual nature worse.
In order to supplement my
knowledge on this matter, especially to avoid any rather obscure formulation
and to remove any ambiguity from my mind, which can taint the meaning of each
word, I embarked on a critical research. This research based primarily on
questioning, away from any preconceived idea or dogmatism, on the meaning of
each term (strategy- doctrine) and its correlations with the other terms.
|
This research has led to the conclusion that
strategy is an idea translated into action plans, at a given time, in a given
environment using certain resources, to reach a goal. Therefore, all the terms
mentioned earlier are, either synonymous to strategy or fall into one of its
components. The confusion is then, related to failure to take into account any
of the levels of design and decision making process.
This article will attempt to develop the
above-mentioned idea and without claiming to have all the answers, but by cons,
will significantly illuminate all these concepts, in order to help eliminate
any opaqueness. First, by delivering the definitions of the terms in question
as a basis of reflection, then by extracting from these definitions the
foundations of the strategy. Then by trying to highlight the sources of
confusion. Finally by exposing the distribution and composition of the strategy
and the doctrine in the military field.
1. DEFINITIONS
In order to understand better the strategy,
it is useful to review a number of definitions considered as significant. These
definitions are from various sources and backgrounds.
Policy
Policy [2]: Noun, plural policies.1.A definite
course of action adopted for the sake of expediency, facility, etc.: We have a
new company policy. 2. A course of action adopted and pursued by a government,
ruler, political party, etc.: our nation's foreign policy....
Synonyms: Strategy, principle, rule... acumen, astuteness, skill, art.
For Aristotle [3]: "Man is by
nature a political animal ", i.e.: an animal destined to live with others
in an organized city, and politics itself is the" sovereign science
"upon which all other sciences depend.
According to General Jean Salvan [4]: Policy
is "The plan that you want to achieve (vision, ideology), the struggle for
power (national, imperial or global) and maintain it, i.e.: The art of
governing and power projection, and finally, the designation of
"friends" and "foes "”.
Aymeric CHAUPRADE [5] defines the
geopolitics as being "The study of the will of applying power to the
situations of the physical and human geography.
Thus it allows to understand the intentions and the behavior of the
international leaders but also the people, the relations between states and
more generally to perceive the issues in the international relations”.
The geopolitics borrows its data at the same time from the history and
from the geography. It is one of the disciplines, which contribute to the
analysis of the international facts.
According to André-Louis SANGUIN [6], we can distinguish two
types of geopolitics: “The military geopolitics and the civilian geopolitics.
The geopolitics of the servicemen become attached to the fate of a country. The
geopolitics of the civilians bases more on a vision of international politics (policy)
in which we inject many spatial ingredients... Geopolitics is a body of texts,
articles, speeches injunctive presenting a situation and indicate (implicitly
or explicitly) policy to be followed."
For Alain LIZELLMANN [7]: “There are
numerous definitions of the geopolitics, betraying sometimes very different approaches”
and his definitions of:” geopolitics is the study of the geographical
determinants which intervene in the politics (policy) of States, as internal as
external. These determinants depend on all geography branches”.
He also argued that “From the geopolitical ideas and wishes, stems
policy. Policy continues in case of armed conflict in strategy (cf.
Clausewitz)”.
Geo-strategy
Daughter of geopolitics, geo-strategy is defined as
the study of macro geographical scale conflicts.
Geostrategic [8] is “The study, preparation or
execution of military operations at the macro-geographical level, that is to
say, a spatial dimension sufficient to exclude the formation of a unique
theater ... The war is the continuation of politics by other means,
geo-strategy is naturally a province of geopolitics”.
André-Louis SANGUIN [9] opts for the
following definition: “The geo-strategy is a method of political action in
space. Geostrategic is the theoretical discourse of this method." Geostrategic
... is the implementation of operational instruments to serve a great purpose
of international politics or military policy ... “.
Strategy
The classical definition of the strategy given by
several thinkers (Clausewitz and Raymond Aron etc...) is “The art of
distributing and applying military means to fulfill the ends of policy [10] “
Liddell Hart also talked about grand strategy and
stated that its role is “To co-ordinate and direct all the resources of (an
organization) towards the attainment of ... a goal defined by fundamental
policy”.
As Edward n. Luttwak [11] says,
“Lacking a good definition, strategy has many meanings. The word is used
variously for strategy as a fixed doctrine or merely a plan, to describe actual
practice or a body of theories”, indeed, there are also other definitions set
forth by various researchers:
Anne MARCHAIS-ROUBELAT [12] Finds that:
“military strategy and business strategy is the same fight...The Military
strategy serves as reference to the business strategy”.
For Herbert ROSINSKI [13], the
strategy has become not only the task of “ conduct and direction of the
war as a whole, but it also includes the effort required to do by all military
leader to endure and overcome this exceptional state of prolonged tension”.
General André Beaufre [14] defined strategy
as “The art of the dialectic of two opposing wills using force to resolve their
dispute”.
Loup Francart [15] asserts that
the strategy is “The art to coordinate all the strengths of the nation to
insure this one the place and the role defined by the political project of the
government ...It focuses on the capacity to conceive, to organize the ideas
around a common purpose to face a hostile environment.” In addition, he added (in the same article)
that the French General Poirier indeed defines the strategy as
« the conception of an action collective and finalized in conflicting
environment”.
The French military corpus refer to two
types of strategy [16]: “1) the general strategy interested in the
direction of the war. It is the responsibility of Head of State, assisted by
advisors of all kinds, to decide on the war aims and to distribute tasks
according to the nature of the envisaged
means of pressure. That is way the
general strategy has diplomatic, economic, scientific, spiritual and military
components. It is active on peacetime and in
wartime. It aims to assure, at all times, necessary advantages and
resources to achieve the policy objectives at the lowest cost.2) the military
strategy takes interest in the conduct of war. It is the responsibility of
the High Command, which translates general
strategy directives into terms answering the use of armed forces, and assuring
this use”.
As for dictionaries definitions:
Oxford Dictionary [17] :” a plan of action or policy
designed to achieve a major or overall aim...the art
of planning and directing overall military operations and movements in a war or
battle...a plan for military operations and movements
during a war or battle”.
According to the « Petit Larousse »,
a French dictionary, strategy is “Art to combine the action of armed
forces to reach a war purpose determined by the political authority. Art to
coordinate the action of armed, political, economic and moral forces involved
in the conduct of a war or the preparation of the defense of a nation or a
coalition”.
Le Robert another French dictionary prefers a simpler definition of strategy is the:” Art
of governing societies”.
The US DOD Dictionary[18]
of Military and Associated Terms stated (1997)
that : “ Strategy is the art and science of developing and using
political, economic, psychological, and military forces as necessary during
peace and war, to afford the maximum support to policies, in order to increase
the probabilities and favorable consequences of victory and to lessen the
chances of defeat”. As for National Military Strategy, it is “The art and
science of Distributing and Applying military power to attain national
objective in peace and war”.
These US definition, in the same document, changed
in 2013 [19]: “A prudent idea or set of ideas for employing the instruments of
national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater,
national, and/or multinational objectives” for strategy. National Military
Strategy changed to “A document approved by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff for distributing and applying military power to attain national security
strategy and national defense strategy objectives”.
The business community define strategy [20] as “the
set of maneuvers that allow the company to successfully complete the conquest
of competitive markets. It is a process of decision and action, deliberate and
proactive. It is by him that the company defines its priorities, directs its
forces allocate - and reallocates - its scarce resources. It is by him too it
sets the goals to reach the standards of success or victory “.
Edward n. LUTTWAK [21] asserted that: “As a
vision of strategy emerged out of shadows of words read, problems investigated
and events experienced, I found out that its contents was not the prosaic stuff
of platitudes ... At the technical level of the strategy, interaction
concerning armaments, at the tactical level, units that face. At the
operational level, we are dealing with the antagonism of two thoughts. It is at
this level that all methods for the conduct of war are implemented ... It is at
the operational level of command of all forces involved unfolds and more is at
this level that we can understand the battle in its entirety, with all its ups
and downs and twists”
Concept [22] (NATO):” A notion or statement of
an idea, expressing how something might be done or accomplished, that may lead
to an accepted procedure ». (01 Nov 1983)
Concept of operations / CONOPS [23] (NATO): “A
clear and concise statement of the line of action chosen by a commander in
order to accomplish his given mission”. (30 Jan 2012)
Concept of Operations [24]: (CONOPS): (NATO) “1. The strategic and
operational levels, expression of the commander's intentions regarding the use
of force, timing and locations to achieve its objectives, and how it should
synchronize the different capacities of resources at its disposal to
happen ; 2. At the tactical level, a clear and concise statement,
how the commander intends to accomplish the mission he has received. Covering
the entire mission, it states that the chief objective is fixed and specifies,
in broad outline, the course of action, as well as the division of tasks
subordinate units, also so called idea of maneuver”.
Strategic Concept [25] (NATO): “The course of
action accepted as a result of the estimate of the strategic situation. It is a
statement of what is to be done in broad terms sufficiently flexible to permit
its use in framing the military, diplomatic, economic, psychological and other
measures which stem from it”.
Doctrine
Sun Tzu [26]: “The doctrine raises the unity of thought and it inspires one way
to live and die, and makes us brave and steadfast in misfortune and death”.
Georges TAN ENG BOK [27] asserts that “Russia
military doctrine (May 1992) has two components, one political and the
other military-technical. Amongst the constituents of the political aspect, are
the prevention of wars and the permanent preparation to repel aggression. The
military-technical aspect mainly concerns: 1) the possible characteristics of
future war; 2) the nature of the defense missions; 3) the structure of the
armed forces, and; 4) the preparation of the country and the armed forces for
war.”
For the Canadian Forces [28] (CF) “Doctrine
provides the military strategic guidance essential for the development and the
employment of the full range of CF capabilities across the spectrum of
operations in response to government direction... Doctrine is a body of
knowledge and thought that provides direction and aids understanding. The CF
definition of doctrine is “fundamental principles by which military forces
guide their actions in support of objectives. It is authoritative but requires
judgment in application. It embraces established wisdom in the areas of problem
solving, decision making and planning, and is sometimes defined as simply
“ what is taught”...CF military doctrine is divided into three levels,
each of which is applicable to both joint and environment-specific doctrine
i.e. strategic, operational, and tactical”.
The NATO [29] defines doctrine as
“Fundamental principles by which the military forces guide their actions in
support of objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgment in
application”.
NATO [30]: “In the estimate process, an option that will accomplish or
contribute to the accomplishment of a mission or task, and from which a
detailed plan is developed”.
Tactics:
Clausewitz [31] definition is as follows: “Tactics is the art of using
troops in battle; strategy is the art of using battles to win the war”.
For Le Robert tactic is “the means we use to
achieve a result”.
US Military [32] define tactic as “The employment and ordered arrangement of
forces in relation to each other”.
General F. GAMBIEZ and Colonel
M. SUIRE [33] assert that: “tactic is primarily the
art of best use of military means depending on the environment and facilities
offered by the technique in order to reduce the opponent's combat or the
threat”.
To paraphrase Admiral Castex, the definitions of
the terms explained in this chapter, represent the elements of a solar
spectrum. There is an area of infrared, which is the realm of politics, and an
area of ultraviolet, which is the one of the tactics. They form a quite united
set, and by no means are separate elements.
All this makes us realize that these notions have
close links. It would be thus difficult on the strictly cognitive level to
establish a clear distinction between them, without concentrating on their
foundations, in particular those of the strategy.
2. THE FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGY
Between 1997 and 2013 the definition of the
strategy by the U.S. military has changed, as shown in Chapter 1, from «Strategy
is the art and science of developing and using ... forces ... (action)" to
" A prudent idea or set of ideas... (Thought) ".
In addition, the French strategist Hervé
Coutau-Begariein in chapter IV of his book “Traité de stratégie” talks
about thoughts and actions. It seems to me that these two terms are primordial
in the researcher’s classification process of: Civilians and Military.
Civilians, in their research tasks, mainly develop
the Thought component of the strategy. The servicemen, given
their feats of arms, talk more about Action. This way of thinking create
a dichotomy the strategy literature.
Clausewitz [34], in his book “On War”, said, “A
prince or general can best demonstrate his genius by managing a campaign
exactly to suit his objectives and his resources, doing neither too much nor
too little”. He added, «In a tactical situation one is able to see at least
half the problem with naked eye, whereas in strategy everything has to be guessed
at and presumed. Conviction is therefore weaker. Consequently
most generals, when they ought to act, are paralyzed by unnecessary
doubts”.
By these four words in this statement, Clausewitz
defined, in my opinion, the conceptual foundations of the strategy: Guess =
Thought; presume = Environment; Conviction = Will and Act = Action.
Indeed, a Thought will lead to an idea: what
you believe to be true, rather than being a definite fact. The basis for further
ideas are then certain facts found by analyzing the Environment, so
resources and time are relativized. However only the Conviction can
affirm the decisions and set the goal, then translating the idea into a plan of
actions materialize the Action.
The analysis of these four key words, based on
General (CR) Gil FIEVET book “De la stratégie – l’expérience militaire au
service de l’entreprise [35]”, will highlight the strategy foundation`s
components, namely thought, environment, conviction and action.
2.2. CONCEPTUAL BASES
2.2.1. Thought
The idea that will allow us to achieve the
objective. It is a part of a problem solving process, which results in the
definition of the problem (thought). Then the use of the means (action) to
overcome the obstacles that stand between the goal and the reality.
Thus several solutions are then possible, thanks to
the heuristics (A rule of action, applicable to any situation that leads
most of the time to faster solutions).
These solutions are not the result of chance, they
are the result of experience, the vision that we have of the future and
expected environment.
2.2.2. Environment
The idea found is not isolated in time and space.
This prediction is not fortuitous but is the result of a well-defined process
dependent on the economic, political, geopolitical, and geostrategic
environment now and in the future.
2.2.3. Conviction
The commitment embodied in the strategy by setting
the goal and means throughout the action, it is also show up, in the choice of
any solution by deciding to eliminate unwanted ones.
2.2.4. Action
The action is the implementation of the idea by
adapting it to the realities (resources and objectives) of the moment and
future.
Thus, strategy is an idea that, based on resources, will enable us to
achieve our goal in a given environment.
Now the foundations of the strategy are known and
defined. It became indispensable to look for the links existing between the
strategy and the other terms defined previously.
2.3. INTERACTIONS
Strategy, within a given situation, is the idea,
which allows reaching the goal. Strategy does not have any limits. Thus there
is an infinite number of ways to reach the goal aspired to.
It is also the will to define an idea (thought) and
using it (action), in a given environment. This action is in order, to overcome
the obstacles that stand between the current situation and the objective.
It is the power of decision, which, depending on
the means available and the environment, allows to set goals and to select a
particular idea, concept, course of action or strategy.
Politics, geopolitics and geo-strategy are integral parts of the
strategy because they are the tools by which we analyze and understand the
environment in the present and in the future and consequently are of importance
in estimating the risk in the choice of such or such strategy.
The idea behind the strategy is not a coincidence. It is the result of
experience and of the vision of the future.
If the study of the environment allows having a
vision, the experience of the past, as the General De Gaulle [36] said, is
where the thinker “will draw his practical liking, his gift of moderation and
his common sense which enlightens the boldness, inspires the maneuver and
fertilizes the action”. The doctrine materialize the reality within the
strategy.
Indeed, among the possibilities to reach a goal,
there are solutions tried in the past with more or less success. This is what
worked best in the eyes of any organization and then selected as doctrine. Why
reinvent the wheel?
Analyzing experiences in order to help thinking and
acting with discernment, without restraining the reflection and the spirit of
initiative, is the quintessence of doctrine.
The doctrine is the reference; it is the foundation
or the starting point of thinking and acting. It is the result of the study and
analysis of experiences and the vision that we have of the future.
It is a used successful strategy. We use doctrine as
a means to:
- Not focus on the short term;
- Not change the goal;
- Avoid indecisiveness.
The
disappointment we may feel wanting, at once, grasp all the meanings of the
strategy, is frequently due to the impedimenta who weighs down this concept. As much as the foundations and
interactions of the strategy allow the enlightenment the mind of the reader on
the notions evoked in this article, as many sources of confusion are to
clarify.
3. SOURCES OF OPAQUENESS
The critical analysis of the strategy, concept,
course of action and doctrine... shows that all these terms are trying to
answer with some nuances the question of "How to reach an objective?”
As a proof to the above concept, let us look at the
NATO’s definitions on the subject:
Military Strategy [37]: “That component of national or multinational strategy,
presenting the manner in which military power should be developed and
applied to achieve national objectives or those of a group of nations”.
Concept [38]: “A notion or statement of an idea, expressing how
something might be done or accomplished, that may lead to an accepted
procedure”.
Course of action [39]: “In the estimate process, an option that will
accomplish or contribute to the accomplishment of a mission or task, and
from which a detailed plan is developed”.
Doctrine [40]:”Fundamental principles by which the military forces guide
their actions in support of objectives. It is authoritative but
requires judgment in application”.
The most surprising is the US military definition
of operational approach [41] : “A description of the broad
actions the force must take to transform current conditions into
those desired at end state “.
From the above presentation, appear the origins of
the confusion, which happens in the minds. Indeed, all these definitions refer
to several elements: The resources; the idea; the translation of this idea into
actions, as well as how to reach a goal in a given environment.
The confusion then is due, in my humble opinion, to
the fact that every word in its implementation focuses on one or more basic
components of the strategy. Therefore, the dominant component brands the word used.
This identification of the dominant component with the
word used is not the only thing that creates indistinctness in people's minds.
Indeed, the servicemen, when defining strategy, are
more loquacious about the action component and talk more about the tools of the
heuristics (experience-based techniques for problem solving [42]). These tools
are in this case, the Operational Art. As it is defined by the United States Army
[43], “The Operational art is the use
of creative thinking by commanders and staffs to design strategies,
campaigns, and major operations and organize and employ military forces”. The
confusion is even more visible in the definition of operational art by the
Canadian Forces[44] “The skill of employing military forces to
attain strategic objectives in a theatre of war or theatre of operations
through the design, organization and conduct of campaigns and major
operations”.
Unequivocally, this opaqueness is also important,
but understanding the nuances of the strategy, according to the level it
addresses, is more critical. In fact, strategy, from the broad to the specific
definition, is to give to subordinates, according to their level, the adequate
and precise sense of "how to attain the goal”.
In fact, Edward N. LUTIWAK [45] set five
levels of strategy: technical, tactical, operational, theatre
strategic and grand strategic level. For some other thinkers and nations, there
are only three levels: tactical, operational and strategic level.
It is important to address all these levels, when we take into account
the process of design and decision-making.
I personally believe, there should only be three
levels of decision (tactical, operational and strategic) which will lead to
five design levels: Tactical, Operational, Military, Politico-Military and
Politics and at each level of design is a definition of strategy.
The table below summarize these levels for the
military field, however by replacing the word military by: Economic, financial,
industrial, cultural … you can come up with all the supporting fields of the national
strategy.
Decision
levels
|
Design
levels
|
Strategy
|
Strategic
|
Politics
|
Grand Strategy or Global Strategy or National
Strategy
|
Politico-military
|
National Military Strategy
|
|
Military
|
Military Strategy or Genetic Strategy of
Strategic level
|
|
Operational
|
Operational
|
Operational
Strategy or Genetic Strategy of Operational level
|
Tactical
|
Tactical
|
Tactical Strategy or Genetic Strategy of Tactical
level
|
Indeed, these levels provide insight into the
strategy and doctrine, and help understand the concept even better by
knowing their distributions and compositions.
Some definitions of this chapter paraphrase some
concepts and definitions of the Canadian Force's doctrine [46].
4.1 DISTRIBUTION
4.1.1 STRATEGY
Admiral Castex [47] said, « The borders of the
strategy have, of course, nothing as definitely distinct as the theory could
make it believe... »
Hence depending on the design level, nuances
appear, because the interests of each decision level are different, even though
carrying out the same political project.
Indeed, the social project (reflects the
idea of society that the vast majority of the citizens want) fixes the supreme
national objectives and determines the role and the place which one wants to
give to the country amongst the international community. After the definition
of its social project, any government periodically declares the manner
by which it plans to realize it: it is the National Strategy.
Starting from the National Strategy directives, each
field develops a strategic option, in conjunction with the other instruments of
national power: Military, economic, diplomatic, cultural, informational etc...
For the military, this option is the general manner
to consider the use of the armed forces in the context of the National
Strategy. It proposes ways, means and methods to achieve the political goals.
It defines the framework of intervention and the mission entrusted to the armed
forces, in order to contribute to the realization of the required political
Final End State (FES).
This strategic option is the basis of the Military Strategy. This
strategy expresses the policy of defense, and governs the design, the
empowering and resourcing, the organization and the use of military force,
within the limits of the National Strategy. This level aims at the
preparation and control of the military operations. It is the level of the
contribution of the armed forces to the National Strategy.
Under the Military Strategy, Operational
strategy states the principles and conditions of the most effective use of
military forces.
Operational Strategy, implemented if necessary,
develops in peacetime assumptions of force engagements and course of actions
envisaged to attain the political objective.
The level of Operational Strategy, is the level in
which is planned, conducted and sustained, the commitment to achieve the
military FES.
This engagement can take place at three levels,
strategic, operational and tactical.
The Operational Strategy is concerned with the
design and execution of the maneuver (ways) at the strategic, operational and
tactical levels. In parallel, the Genetic Strategy (not covered in this
article) focuses on the means of implementation of the force.
Even if there is a primacy of the idea on the
material, the genetic strategy has a capacity of influence on all the spheres
of the strategy, because it allows granting the goals required to the means.
4.1.2 DOCTRINE
The doctrine also like the strategy depends on the
design and decision levels:
Decision
levels
|
Design
levels
|
Doctrine
|
Strategic
|
Politics
|
National Doctrine (Constitution, Law…).
|
Politico-military
|
Military Doctrine (joint)
|
|
Military
|
Fundamental Military Doctrine (for each service).
|
|
Operational
|
Operational
|
Operational Military Doctrine (by
functions).
|
Tactical
|
Tactical
|
Tactical Military Doctrine
(by systems and
guns).
|
National doctrine is customs, fundamental laws and
principles that define the nature, functions, and limits of national power in
order to build the social project.
Military doctrine is the official choice on how best to use the Armed
Forces (Joint).
The fundamental doctrine defines the general
guidelines on the organization and use of the components of the armed forces.
The Operational doctrine provides more details on
the organization and principles of use of each service, by function, taking
into account the objectives and the environment.
The Tactical doctrine describes the use of weapons
systems based on the objectives and tactical conditions (threats, weather,
terrain...).
Now that the whole concept is clearer, it is
important to review in depth the composition of the strategy and doctrine at
each design level.
4.2 COMPOSITION
4.2.1 THE COMPOSITION OF DIFFERENT STRATEGIES
STRATEGY
|
COMPOSITION
|
OUTCOME
|
National
Strategy
|
STRATEGIC CONCEPT [48]:
The course of action accepted because of the estimate of the strategic
situation. It is a statement of what is to be done in broad terms
sufficiently flexible to permit its use in framing the military, diplomatic,
economic, Psychological and other measures, which stem from it;
Political Objective/ Political
FES.
|
Social Project
|
National
Military
Strategy
|
Concept of force employment:
Statement of principles, conditions and ends of force employment in a given
geo-strategic environment. (Defense Policy, employment framework, mission);
Organization;
Means;
Military
Objective / Military FES
|
Political Objective/ Political FES
|
Military
Strategy
|
Concept of Operations [49]:
The CONOPS clearly and concisely expresses what the Joint Force Commander
intends to accomplish and how it will be done using available resources. It
describes how the actions of the joint force components and supporting
organizations will be integrated, synchronized, and phased to accomplish the
mission, including potential branches and sequels;
Plans/Joint Operation Order ;
Strategic Center of
Gravity.
|
Military Objective /
Military FES
|
Operational
Strategy
|
Concept of Operations
Plans/ Operation
Order;
Operational Center of
Gravity
|
Strategic
Center
of Gravity
|
Tactical
Strategy
|
Concept of Operations
Plans/ Operation Order ;
Tactical Center of
Gravity
|
Operational Center of
Gravity
|
4.2.2 THE COMPOSITION OF DIFFERENT DOCTRINES
DOCTRINE
|
COMPOSITION
|
OUTCOME
|
National Doctrine
|
It defines: Capabilities; Constraints;
Limitations and General Objectives based on the instruments
of national power.
|
Social
Project
|
Military Doctrine (joint)
|
It reflects the concept of
employment in major military capabilities to hold and defines the principles
of war. Describes the organization and the employment of
joint forces.
|
Political Objective
|
Fundamental
Military Doctrine
(for each service)
|
It sets out the most fundamental and enduring principles that guide
the use of each service forces across the continuum of operations and
how the force can be effectively constituted, maintained and used.
An example from the Air Force: description of air operations.
|
Military
Objective
|
Operational
Military Doctrine (by functions).
|
It applies the principles of Fundamental military doctrine to military
actions by describing procedures for all functions necessary to
use to achieve goals in each particular operational environment.
An
example of the air component: the Airlift function.
|
Strategic
Center
of
Gravity
|
Tactical
Military Doctrine (by systems and guns).
|
It describes in detail how to use the weapons systems and forces to be
used to achieve operational objectives.
An example of the air force: fighter aircraft can be used to perform
offensive missions against enemy air forces. In this case, tactical doctrine
procedures determine the type and number of fighter aircraft to be used, the
necessary support and how to attack the target depending on the type of
target, the air defense weapons, weather conditions, terrain and other
factors.
|
Operational
Center
of Gravity
|
The analysis part of this article, even though
brief, has shown that the strategy is based on the interaction of four
components: Thought, Environment, Conviction and Action.
In addition, it was stated that the "Environment" component of the
strategy, integrates data from politics, geopolitics and geo-strategy, to make
the action consistent with the realities on the ground.
For
the concept and course of action, they respectively represent the idea and the
action needed to attain the assigned objective. Furthermore, by taking into
account the levels of design and decision-making, they can be identified to
strategy.
Nowadays,
Strategy has become a popularized and vastly used term, to such an extent that
the adjective "strategic" has replaced the word "important"
"in all papers and shows on TV or radio. The doctrine however has become a
frightening term to some, as it crystallize certain ideas of indoctrination and
negative connotations, having had in the past severe consequences on the
humanity. It is therefore, without being a dogma, the reference and the basis
of reasoning and action.
The
definitions mentioned in this article were able to draw the outlines of the
strategy and doctrine and to highlight the fact that the distinction between
all the nuances cannot alone clearly dissipate all the semantic and conceptual
confusions. Taking into account the design and decision-making levels is
fundamental to understand these notions. The confusions are also the result of
the exchange, which takes place between military and civil thoughts. The
relatively recent introduction of the art of war in the business community
and the import by some military theorists, without any precaution, of new
conceptual and methodological bases belonging to the civil macrocosm, create
more confusion in the minds.
This article
has attempted to address a broad and of little consensus topic, to participate
in clarifying the fundamental concepts in the use of armed forces. The developed
nations publish their politico-military corpus to assert their convictions and
establish the principles, which govern their countries. Since having these
documents is very topical for other nations, perhaps should they create this
corpus as advocated by Loup FRANCART [50], “Having a doctrine is an important
factor of global influence on the countries constituting our areas of strategic
interest. Since decade, the U.S. military spread their doctrine in the world,
organize meetings, conferences, symposia to make it known .., Mostly with
non-restricted access, this literature permeates the minds of other nations,
influences their vision of future confrontation and adds to the conceptual
material superiority supremacy”
Revised and Enlarged Edition
Mustapha
Dafir (Retired Colonel)
[1]Maxims
of War, 1831, US Joint Publication 5-0
[2]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/policy?s=t
[3]Cyberphilo.com
[4]De la stratégie à la géopolitique, quelques
éléments d'une approche pluridisciplinaire. Alexandre Del Valle
[5] Méthodes de la géopolitique, ellipses, 1996
[6] www.institut-strategie.fr
[7]http://alain.litzellmann.free.fr/introduction.htm
[8]http://www.institut-strategie.fr/strat_058_Motte_tdm.html
[9]http://www.institut-strategie.fr/strat_055_Sanguin.html
[10]Liddell
Hart, B. H.Strategy London:Faber, 1967 (2nd rev ed.) p. 321
[11]
Strategy: the logic of war and peace, p.286, Appendix A
[12]
http://www.institut-strategie.fr/strat_060_ROUBELAT.html
[13]www.institut-strategie.fr/strat_062_rosinskiev.html Cahiers
herbert Rosinski -L'ÉVOLUTION DE LA STRATÉGIE
[14]Introduction à la stratégie, 1963, p. 16)
[15]http://www.institut-strategie.fr/strat068_Francart.htmlL’ÉVOLUTION
DES NIVEAUX STRATÉGIQUE, OPÉRATIF ET TACTIQUE
[16] L’épée de Damoclès, Paris. Plon. 1967 Le
Général F. GAMBIEZ et colonel M. SUIRE
[17]
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/strategy
[18]
JP 1-02 DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, Joint doctrine encyclodedia, july
16, 1997
[19]
JP 1-02 DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, Nov 8, 2010 as amended
through Mar 15, 2013
[20] Dictionnaire de stratégie, Thierry de
Montbrial et Jean Klein.
[21] Le grand livre de la stratégie, Odile Jacob
2002
[22] AAP-06,
NATO GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
[23] Ibid
[24]
ATP-35 (§ 205), NATO document
[25]
AAP-06, NATO GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
[26]
http://www.encyclopedie-incomplete.com/?L-Art-De-La-Guerre-Sun-Tzu-Article
[27]
http://www.institut-strategie.fr/strat_056_TANENGBOK.html
[28]
http://www.cfd-cdf.forces.gc.ca/sites/page-eng.asp?page=10772
[29]
AAP-06, NATO GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
[30] Ibid
[31]Vom
Kriege, II, 1
[32]
Joint publication JP- 1-02, as amended mars 15, 2013
[33] L’épée de Damoclès Paris. Plon. 1967
[34]
Clausewitz, ON WAR edited and translated by Micheal HOWARD and peter PARET
[35] Paris : InterEditions, ©1993.
[36] Le fil de l’épée Paris. Berger-Levrault.
1932.
[37] NATO
AAP-6 (2008)
[38] Ibid
[39] Ibid
[40] Ibid
[41] US Joint
Operation Planning, 11 August 2011(JP) 5-0
[42] www.heuristic-knowledge.com
[43]Joint
Publication 3-0, 11 August 2011
[44]
http://www.cfd-cdf.forces.gc.ca/sites/page-eng.asp?page=10834
[45]Strategy:
The Logic of War and Peace, Belknap Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1987 pp
69-71.
[46]
www.cfd-cdf.forces.gc.ca
[47] Amiral Raoul CASTEX Théories
stratégiques. Tome I Paris. Société d’éditions géographiques maritimes et
coloniales.1933.
[48]
NATO_AAP-6(2008)
[49]JP5_0
Joint Operation Planning, page xxvii
[50]Loup FRANCART, « PENSER L'ACTION POUR MIEUX AGIR I), DEFENSE NATIONALE, AVRIL 1997
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire