Doctrine for asymmetric warfare

Military Review, July-August, 2003 by Clinton J. Ancker, III, Michael D. Burke

To understand the role of doctrine, we must distinguish between doctrine and TTP. Most people using the term doctrine are referring to the whole body of doctrine and fail to separate out each component's specific role. Defining each component's role is a seemingly minor distinction, but it is important to understanding since each component plays a different part in how the military operates. More germane is that each component has a slightly different role with respect to asymmetry, and each has a different cyclic rate in terms of its development and useful life.

Effective doctrine explains how we expect to fight and operate based on past experience and a best guess of what lies ahead. Doctrine--

* Provides the link between research, theory, history, experimentation, and practice.

* Encapsulates a body of knowledge and experience so it can be applied.

* Provides common understanding and a common language, which allows us to articulate clearly and succinctly what Army forces should accomplish.

The narrow definition of doctrine is "fundamental principles by which the military forces or elements thereof guide their actions in support of national objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgment in application." (4) To distinguish between the broad concept, including all four components, and the more narrow definition, we can italicize the latter.

As Fuller noted, Army doctrine should provide an operational concept, a philosophy of how the Army operates. (5) In doing so, doctrine must reconcile operational requirements with the force's perceived strengths. Armies operate best when capitalizing on demonstrated capabilities and asymmetric strengths. History contains many examples of military failure occasioned by attempts to match an enemy's style of warfare despite friendly forces being ill-suited to the challenge.

Tactics. Tactics deals with how units are employed during combat. (6) The actual application of tactics is highly circumstantial and is both science and art. U.S. Army Field Manual (FM) 3-90, Tactics, states, "The science of tactics encompasses the understanding of those military aspects of tactics--capabilities, techniques, and procedures--that can be measured and codified. The art of tactics consists of three interrelated aspects: the creative and flexible array of means to accomplish assigned missions; decisionmaking under conditions of uncertainty when faced with an intelligent enemy; and understanding the human dimension--the effects of combat on soldiers. The tactician invokes the art of tactics to solve tactical problems within his commander's intent by choosing from interrelated options, such as forms of maneuver, tactical mission tasks, and arrangement and choice of control measures." (7) Note, in particular, the description of the art of tactics--"decisionmaking under conditions of uncertainty when faced with an intelligent enemy"--for this is almost a direct link between tactics and asymmetry. (8)

Tactics vary constantly with the situation. There is no playbook of tactical solutions; the tactics manual only offers a menu from which to choose. Tactics are employed against an asymmetric opponent in the course of combat, but there can be no set of tactics checklists for asymmetric warfare, since each application is unique. Tactics are whatever we do against an asymmetric opponent when we arrange forces to counter that opponent. What differentiates tactics against an asymmetric opponent is that we might not have ever used that particular combination of options before, or we might have to incorporate new and novel options to counter asymmetry. When confronted by a situation, leaders must choose from a variety of possible solutions and adapt their solution to circumstances at the point of engagement.