Break Strategy

The great strategists, and all modern armies, hold that there are a handful of 'principles of war'. These guide soldiers in the conduct of war, assisting them to, in the words of Sun-tzu, "confront chaos with discipline".

Younghusband at Coming Anarchy is running a series of posts on Canada's "10 Principles of War". The master principle is "selection and maintenance of the aim". In war, according to the Canadians, "the ultimate aim is to break the enemy's will to win".

I have great difficulty with this aim. What exactly is the "enemy's will to win"? How do you break it? And what are the unintended consequences? We know that fanatics draw courage and determination from trials of strength and adversity. By seeking to break the enemy's will, do we actually fortify it?

The statement rightly recognizes that war is a violent clash of wills. What it fails to recognize is that the enemy is unlikely to have a single will. Within any enemy organization, be it a government, army, insurgent movement, terrorist group or militia, there will be different factions, different ways of thinking, and different views on objectives, strategies and tactics. This is difficult to "break", but it does offer numerous opportunities for overcoming an enemy. "The warrior shapes his victory from the dynamic of the enemy", wrote Sun-tzu.

Use of the word 'break' implies that there is only one way of overcoming an enemy - through overwhelming force - and that victory consists of the enemy's total defeat. It neglects other, time honoured ways of achieving one's aims in war, like negotiating, blockading, subverting, and co-opting. It also ignores the reality of modern warfare - that even with great manpower and sophisticated technology it is often not possible to 'win' except at the point of complete devastation and exhaustion.

So, what should be the ultimate aim? I like Sun-tzu's idea, expressed in The Art of War: "The highest form of warfare is to attack strategy itself". Don't focus on something as nebulous as breaking "the enemy's will to win". Break tangible things, like the enemy's objectives, plans, and ideas. Break his strategy.

Comments

[Adrian]

Generally when one force says it will "break the enemy's will to win", it involves massive violence against civilians. Dresden/Hamburg, Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Vietnam, Fallujah. Perhaps that is because if you break the opposing military's will to win but not the civilians', then civilians will just repopulate the military and you are back to square one.

[ArloRay]

I think you pretty much got it all in your post. To say that there are 'principles' of war. Is to assume that there is only one kind (definition) of war. And you are assuming your enemy should abide by the same. Two apposing forces abiding by the same rules could go on forever as long as there is a re-supply. Then it is only a matter of attrition.(i think that's the word). Breaking the enemies will should'nt only be applied on a particular battle at hand. Crush them to where they don't want to pull the trigger. But also by implementing other tactics off the battle field. Assuming everything is conventional, eh. In any event, I think the determining factor lies in the forces behind the military (leaving out the technology gap of stomping on some third world country). For the "west" it's the 'moral' issue of the civilians and elected officials. And the rest of the world it's mostly a re-supply issue.

I think american military commonders should be able to be completely flexible and be adaptable to the situation at hand.

[Yours Truly]

Kotare,(or should I address you as Strat?)it's interesting to read your posts on Sun-tzu.

Though Sun-tzu was the first work on strategic theory that I've read,basically I'm very much Clausewitzian.

Must be due to the fact I've had too many encounters with "the fog of war" & "friction" in my daily life...

[Yours Truly]

I thought victory in war is to be garnered at the lowest possible cost with the most lasting advantages?

" The manoeuvrist approach...concentrates on the judicious massing of effects rather than the massing of physical force." : Australian Army, Future Land Warfare 2032

" Chaos Versus Predictability : A Critique of Effects - Based Operations " by a David Kilcullen & Justin Kelly deserves study.

Time to re - read Sun Tzu again, dear acolytes of war. Preferably in its original language.

[Kotare]

Hi YT

While I can't read Sun-tzu in Chinese, ancient or modern, a while back I found what I think is a very good translation by John Minford in Penguin's Great Ideas series.

A small sample: "Lure with bait, Strike with chaos".