5 levels of war
June 20, 2012 Leave a comment
There’s generally accepted there’s three levels in war: strategy, operations, and tactics; strategy is a long term plan, tactics a short term and operations a mid-level. I would add to these three levels two new ones: politics and technique. There’s generally accepted there’s a level of hierarchy, strategy on top, tactics on bottom, and operations as a mid-level; strategy and operations in lower levels but with a bigger base, for example, as a pyramid. Sun tzu said, Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. That system of pyramid is sometimes criticized, by me too, but represent a vague idea of the level of these parts; I would put politics, or diplomacy, i prefer the term politics because of the greater scope (how people of different hierarchies, and their rulers, and incidents affect the state of war and peace) on the base of the pyramid, followed by strategy, operations, tactics and finally, on the top, technique, dexterity, ability.
For example, politics would be the base, where all is started and is so low that is sometimes not even important, since in war there are sometimes non cooperative adversaries, but it sometimes defines the state of war, maybe 孙子Sun Tzu talked about it when he said “the excellence is to conquer the enemy without fighting”. Of course using this phrase as a excuse for no need of war is a complete misconception, which would made the most part of art of war useless, Sun Tzu himself said “war is of vital importance to the state”; people more acquainted with war would use politics in a more immediate scope of war, for example bribing an army in the field, or making them surrender of fear of what could happen to them, a strategy very used by the mongols. Followed by the long term strategies, as Sun Tzu said, start even before the start of a war; followed by operational level of organizing the different groups of forces in the fronts; followed by tactics, the plan of attacking directly the troops, flanking them, ambushes, attacks of a weak point, etc. where the real battle is decided; and finally, the overlooked technique; wouldn’t the perfect all other four levels, combined in a favorable position to attack be ruined by a troop that don’t know how to fight with swords and spears or don’t have the aim to take the adversaries in a gun fight,or if they don’t have the coordination to advance in the proper formations?
This pyramid seems to be inverted compared to what generally is represented the levels, but I will explain soon why it is made so wait my next texts.