Col. Senior Lecturer Dr VIOREL OSTROPEL

Transcription

1 LAWS AND PRINCIPLES WITHIN MODERN COMBAT ARMY Col. Senior Lecturer Dr VIOREL OSTROPEL Abstract Just as a law can be expressed through one or more principles, one principle can meet the requirements of one or more laws. The elaboration of principles is done according to the armed combat laws through scientific approaches and is afterwards emphasised in different proportions depending on the actual factors of the situation. The army commanders have to strive in order to choose from a multitude of principles those corresponding to the goals established through the action plans. The experience of armed combat demonstrates that success in battle is to a great extent the result of enhancing the contradictions between the tendencies of the same law or principle. Freedom of action strongly implies taking the initiative and restraining the enemy manoeuvres and means of action. It is essentially a matter of achieving a maximum efficiency of the friendly forces whereas diminishing the efficiency of the adversary. The principles of armed combat are closely inter-related and governed by a mutually conditioning relation that should be taken into account when working up the execution plan. The surprise factor relies in the unequal application of manoeuvre, efforts, unity of command as well as on the clear definition of objectives, etc. War as a social-historical phenomenon expresses the most violent relation that can be manifested in a certain stage of the development of a conflict produced between great groups of people, alliances, states or coalitions which are militarily organized, dispose of fire power and which uptake armed combat as a last resort in order to piece up the misunderstanding otherwise impossible to solve in peaceful terms. Therefore, seen from the perspective of its finality, the armed combat should be understood not only as a key element and turning point in the denouement of war, but also as great human and material resource consumer, which confers it a great destructive character. Besides the military component, such a great confrontation is characterized by other fields of the social life such as: the political, economic, technical-scientific, diplomatic, and ideological fields, etc. All these fields taken either separately or together contribute more or less to the successfully development of armed combats and are complementary domains that could influence the outcome of the confrontation. The armed combat has its own governing laws studied by the military science and set up as landmarks of planning, organizing, coordinating and developing military actions.

2 The modern armed combat is now more than ever based on a thorough knowledge and application of the requirements arising from its own laws and which are on their turn materialized through rules, norms and principles, as well as on the valorisation of commanders leading aptitudes. The laws of armed combat represent the essential, obligatory, and general relations characterized by repeatability and relative stability, established between the internal components of the military phenomenon as well as between the latter and other social fields which determine the preparation and development of military actions. The laws of armed combat are not created by the military theoreticians but determine the armed combat independently of people s will. Their correct understanding and employment represents the rejection of all forms of subjectivism or volunteerism, being the theoretical-methodological basis of force deployment in the projected military actions [1]. According to military specialists there are two categories of armed combat laws, some general expressing the dependency of armed confrontations denouement on a series of economic, political, scientific and factors and others specific as for instance the law of armed combat scope, the law of force proportion, the law of combat action unity, etc. Consequently, when approaching the general laws of armed combat seen as a result of historical evolution, more precisely as a mark left by the historical era on the physiognomy of armed combat and consequently on its contents and laws, military specialists consider that we are witnessing a diversification of the general laws among which it is compulsory to find the following: the law of military power and armed battle s dependency on the state, alliance, coalition s economic-social development; the law of confrontation preparedness, evolution and denouement dependency on the quality of political decisions; the law governing the important role played by the nation in understanding the place and sense of the war and in supporting the general effort; the law governing the decisive role played by winning one armed confrontation in getting out victorious from the war; the law governing the ability of the belligerent states to seal alliances and politico-military coalitions. The law of military power and armed battle s dependency on the state, alliance or coalition s economic-social development reflects the role played by the economy in general and by the material and technological progress in particular, in supporting the war as a prerequisite of waging and ending the war. From this point of view the law emphasizes the objective nature and the universal character of the dialectic relation between society s capacity to produce consumer goods and the manner in which they are used in order to support military confrontations.

3 On the other hand, the law referred to places one state s military potential and fighting power and its economic development in a relation of dependence. It explains why the elaboration of the force employment doctrine is founded on the material resources, it places states in chains of command as a consequence of an economic and not demographic or territorial development. Hence the particularly important part played by the economy before, during and after the armed confrontation in terms of its contribution to ending the war. The law of confrontation preparedness, evolution and denouement dependency on the quality of political decisions enhances the definition of Clausewitz according to which war is a continuation of the politics by other means. All armed confrontations are undoubtedly based on political decisions which let their mark upon the training and force employment strategy harmoniously correlated with all the goals established by the political factor, from the preservation of the fundamental interests to the distribution of spheres of influence. The part played be nations in the war has to be analyzed according to at least two fundamental elements: the nations have on the other hand to accept the military confrontation and to respect the decision taken by the political factor and state leading structures, and on the other hand to participate in the general effort supporting the war. History has shown us that the nation can exert a powerful pressure on the political factor whenever its aspirations are in contradiction with those of the command structures, directly influencing the decisions related especially to the confrontations performed outside the national territory. Nation s contribution to supporting the effort is materialized not only through the resources it allocates: human, financial, technical, scientific, psychological, etc. but also through its direct engagement as a combatant force. The law governing the decisive role played by winning one armed confrontation in getting out victorious from the war, expresses an unanswerable truth confirmed by recent or older military confrontations, a truth that states that the armed combat is the one that directly and decisively influences the political, diplomatic, and economic post-conflict actions. History has given rare instances of states coming out victorious of a military confrontation without benefiting from economic facilities or political priorities. Lately it has become more and more evident that, as a consequence of globalization the interests have to be asserted and placed under the same

4 protecting aegis be it called alliance or coalition. Hence the increased dependency of armed conflicts and their outcome on the capacity of all states to join their economic, political, and military efforts so that they could wage a war that has become more and more expensive and impossible to be managed by one state alone. The alliances and coalitions dissipate the material effort while obviously amplifying the combat power, diplomatic liberty and influence on the international organisms and public opinion. When the diplomatic talks have failed to manage the confrontation between states, groups of states, alliances or coalitions, the fight is fought with military forces which resort to armed combat in order to impose their will. The armed combat is influenced by situation factors such as time, space, economic, technical and scientific potentialities, by the unfailing connections between its internal components and the external elements that bring their contribution to ending the confrontation. The particular laws of armed combat have known a permanent evolution keeping track with the transformations of society. They diversify and modify their contents according to the historical stage of our society. Although there is no consensus on the content of armed combat laws, the following are undoubtedly considered to be very important: the law of armed combat s dependency on the level of economic-social development, the law of fighting forms and procedures dependency on military technique progress, the law of force relation, the law of unity of action, the law of concordance between goals, forces and means. The development of forces and production means has led to economic progress and the diversification of human society which has constantly tried to translate the science and technique progress into the military field. As a consequence, the new technology has entered military confrontations through the modifications it imposed on the fighting forms and procedures. From this perspective we can assert that each historical stage is characterized by certain fighting forms and procedures, equipment and military structures. Now more than ever, the scientific revolutions have affected the military component of war generating new fighting forms and procedures different from those of the past. Nowadays we are talking about effect-based actions, full spectrum actions and network warfare. Were we to consider the last type of conflict alone, and it becomes obvious that we are witnessing a great shift in the dynamic of actions and contents of armed combat. The law of unity of action emphasizes a fundamental requirement of armed combat, namely that the efforts of all forces and means implied in

5 an armed combat should focus on the general goals the defeat of the enemy. This fact entails the integration, cooperation, coordination and synchronization of land, air and naval actions based on a unique plan of action that could confer each arm or force category the freedom of action and synergic effect it requires. The law of unity of action refers both to command and execution, the complexity of which increases according to the level of representation due to the scope of operations, battles and combats and the responsibilities implied by them. The correspondence between goals, forces and means require a thorough analysis of the situation factors as well as decisions emphasising the correct correlation of military missions and force and means quality and quantity. The law of concordance between goals, forces and means acts unequivocally at all levels of military art influencing both the manner of force formation and their organization and equipment from the perspective of accomplishing the missions assigned. The imperatives governing the enforcement of these laws would entail: real assessment of the situation factors and enemy possibilities in time and space; the appropriate qualitative and quantitative assignment of forces and means in correlation with their specific equipment and training. From a conceptual point of view the selection of forces and means implies a rigorous analytical process based on which the forces capable of accomplishing the plan of action with minimum expenditure and maximum target effects are chosen. Nevertheless the mere setting up of forces and means even if done according to scientific criteria does not suffice provided it is corroborated with the most efficient procedures, forms and principles of armed combat. The two conflicts from Iraq exemplify not only the enforcement but also the infringement of this law and its effects. If on the one hand the objectives set by the Americans were in full concordance with the real possibilities of forces at their disposal, the Iraqis were incapable of rising structurally and qualitatively up to the mark of the missions they were supposed to accomplish and hence their inconspicuous reaction. The force relation represents the expression of the quantitative and qualitative relation between two opposing forces (values) and makes success dependent on a force and means superiority [2].

6 The latest armed conflicts have emphasized the fact that the quantitative superiority of forces and means is necessary though not sufficient. The force ratio presented under the form of mathematical relations is no longer relevant since the mere enumeration of numerical expressions of the type 4/1 tanks, 5/1 artillery is deceptive because it induces a state of tranquillity which is in fact shallow since force and means quality can often compensate force quantity. In the holographic vision of cyber war the force relation is no longer unilaterally nor statically expressed, since it has to include amending and informational or structural multiplication coefficients. The relation of 3/1 of attacking and defending forces considered so far to be necessary, is drastically amended by the speed and operating possibilities of the military systems engaged [3]. The law of force relation is materialized especially thorough two principles of armed combat: force and means economy and effort concentration at the decisive place and moment. This is possible provided a realistic analysis of friendly and adversary possibilities is done, a minimum of force assigned in the un-attacked sections and an optimum group focused on the main directions, key points, and weight centres at the right time. Consequently, it is not compulsory that superiority should be general but in relation to the vital elements of the enemy and to a perfect timing. All these led to the formulation of the force economy principle which stipulates that no greater potential than what is needed should be engaged anywhere in the world. In their complexity and diversity, the laws of armed combat are accomplished through the general principles representing a set of theses, rules and norms that govern the preparation and conduct of operations. The relation between the armed combat laws and its principles is after all an issue of correlating the objectiveness expressed by the law with its reflection expressed by the principles of action [4]. As far as the set of principles is concerned the opinions are diversified, far from reaching a consensus since some of them have been modified whereas others have disappeared, due to the influence certain factors such as the nature, structure and power of the military organism have on the acknowledgement of their universality of on the contrary, meteoric emergence. Within the military contemporary theory, we consider that the principles responsible for the actions physiognomy developed within the modern war are such as: action freedom, efforts concentrating and proper time and action, the manoeuvre, the action security and the forces, the

7 command unity the clear defining of the goals (missions), the force economy. The action freedom principle refers to the free acting within the battlefield, to forcing the enemy to react and to not imposing the game rules. The action freedom acquiring, along the delaying or the restricting of the enemy s attempts to assimilate it, place a special pert in the military thinking, in the combat leading activity. The action freedom providing is strictly connected to the measures imposed to efficiently favour the rejecting action [5]. The action freedom accomplishing means are numerous, from the initiative gaining and maintaining to the action procedures, from the enemy manoeuvre anticipating, to research, from leading flexibility to superior valorising of the time season and field conditions. We have often used the idiom: the best defence is represented by the attack. Nevertheless, this desideratum represents the action freedom. The permanent initiative in fighting, the active feature, represent an efficient way to decide and fulfil the goals. The effort concentrating principle in decisive places and moments, although stated differently ( force and means group accomplishing, force and means concentrating, etc) mainly refer to the same thing, the continuous accomplishing of the force group numerous enough as to execute decisive hits on the enemy, by means of the fire power of the combat devices. If this principle as about a consistent joining of the forces and means within different area, sectors, established within the main directions, according to the adopted form of combat, in the present the cyber combat field implies the reviewing of the concept, namely the concentration of the action effects, at the proper time and place, obeying the force and means dispensation. The remarkable performances of the research and hitting systems amplify the grouped forces vulnerabilities on reduced spaces. As the force concentration principle is far from having lost its importance, even in the conditions of the space getting fluid, the new means to apply this must eliminate the vulnerabilities using the classical force and means, which is absolutely fundamental. This imply the establishing of the key points, of the enemy s weight centre and the concentrated planning of the land forces, the air ones and the naval ones, on several directions.

8 Thus it is about valorising the performances and the means to fight and the modern transport which provides the operative manoeuvre of the forces and means in any theatre area. Thus, the applying the efforts concentration is dependent on the correlation with other principles such as: manoeuvre, action unity, surprise. The force economy principle relies on a balanced relationship of the force possibilities and of the mission imposed necessity meant to allow the maximum results, by means of minimum cost and efforts. The force economy principle, acknowledged even since Antiquity, has maintained its validity on every single step of the military art evolution. This is the reason why we need to use the maximum amount of forces for the war main goal the destroying and disorganizing of the enemies army and the minimum of forces strictly necessary for secondary goals. During the combat we should defeat the adversary at a proper time and place; the rest of the battlefield should be balanced or at least safe [6]. A short analysis highlights the first aspect of the forces concentrating and pf the means involved in the areas or alignments, meant to provide the aimed and goals and which are part of the war general effort. The force economy principle and means relays on the correlation with the force report with the goals concordance and also with the forces and means that this implies. Last but not least, it concerns the efforts principle within the decisive places and moments. At the action level, in order to create the force economy principle and means, we need to have a: realistic assessment, the enemy s possibility in time and space, the exact identification of the enemy weight centre, the exact knowing of the friendly troops combatant capacity. According to the above stated requirements, we need to set the enemy goals, the enemy features, their priorities and also the means to provide the maximum effects; the mission on force category according to the training endowment and existing possibilities. In the conditions of unlimited capabilities of the combat means to locate and hit any target world wide, the request to fulfil the missions with minimum loses became a certainty, an intrinsic value of the modern armed combat. In the analysis and decision centres, the objectives and priorities are established; each fighting element is given armed target, thus avoiding a crowding of elements on armed single target. The manoeuvre was and still is the main principle of the armed combat, with the widest implementing. Practically, there is not armed single military action that was not accompanied by armed manoeuvre. The construction and finality of most of the other principles within combat are strictly connected to the manoeuvre existence. We wonder whether we can

9 talk about the enemy concentrating the efforts at the proper timing or about the enemy surprising without using the fire, the force or the means. Definitely not. Based on ingeniosity, flexibility in intuition and thinking, the opportune applied manoeuvre can create important unbalanced situations within the enemy structure, can impose the rules of the game and can also facilitate the obtaining and maintaining of the initiative and can still provide the safety of the friendly forces. Basically, the manoeuvre represents some actions and activities, which accomplish the most advantageous force and means grouping, at the proper time and place, while placing the enemy in armed favourable situation, meant to perform decisive hits or to save the friendly forces from this. The manoeuvre is developed within every level of the military art and is featured by the form and combat principle, and also by the action goal and intensity. Within modern armed combat, the military manoeuvre needs to have a continuous character, thus avoiding the stereotype. The command unity was imposed by the force and military means diversity that are involved within diversity. The need to cooperate, coordinate and synchronize the actions for all the force categories, according to armed unique plan, within the limits armed of armed common goal, was and still perceived as an essential condition for the operation success. In the present conditions when we use more and more the joint operations, the integrated ones, the complete spectrum operations, the lack of structural authority meant to monitor and harmonize the relationships within the force group, would be unconceivable. The command unity principle finds itself in the effort unity. Even in the conditions of participating in the unbalanced unity of command and in the acting autonomy principle, the efforts of the parts must be in accordance with the general purpose defeating the adversary. At the action level, the command unity principle consists in armed coherent analysis of the actions, elaborating some strategies and action plans which to allow the using of the forces according with the capabilities, and thru the missions complementarities unity of effects. Nowadays, when we assist at combinations of forces, trained to develop actions within multinational operations, the command unity principle has developed a crucial importance in the confrontation economy. The objectives of this principle: ensuring the command continuity, combining the forces efforts, no matter the branch, are possible only if the interoperability and the compatibility of the forces in action is realized. Real time visualization of the battlefield, of many echelons, principle on which the network war is based, to mention only the last

10 accomplishing, gives great opportunities to the military structures to fulfill their missions, but with the essential condition, that of establishing the responsibility of each structure element from the mission, of an balanced distribution of objectives in the area of operations. The success of this new conception of using the forces, which we have seen in the last militaries campaigns, developed by the American Army, is based especially on command unity principle. In the analysis and decision centres, the objectives and priorities are established; each fighting element is given armed target, thus avoiding a crowding of elements on armed single target. Like the manoeuvre, the surprising principle is considered in the theory and practice of military art, as being essential for the success of an operation. By surprise we understand planning, organizing and executing some actions that the adversary is not expecting, the decisive applying of fighting power elements, panic and confusion among the adversary troops. As the force concentration principle is far from having lost its importance, even in the conditions of the space getting fluid, the new means to apply this must eliminate the vulnerabilities using the classical force and means, which is absolutely fundamental. In the present conditions, of the existence of the ultra performing surviving system, it is almost impossible to accomplish the surprising action at armed strategic level and even an operative one, namely to create the force groups, the deployment and the unexpected hits. The essential goal of the surprising actions is represented by the adversary hitting in unfavourable conditions, when this is unprepared. The establishing of the favourable moments for the decisive hits implies armed permanent knowing of the adversary intentions. The information gathering, the operative analyze and processing is fundamental in action by surprise initiating. Most of the times, an action success imposes the accomplishing of another armed combat principle. The main elements that contribute to the adversary surprising within modern combat could be: ingeniosity in conception and execution, applying new combat principle; keeping the action secret, permanent providing for the friendly forces protection; dynamism and reaction speed in decisive hits; initiatives in calculate risk assuming. The last armed conflicts have shown, more then ever, the importance of surprising on the battlefield. The surprising has been accomplished by means of conception, neutralizing, at all levels of the military art, the anti aerial defence systems, the communication systems, the armoured carriers and also by means of execution, new combat principles, armed systems implementation and adversary unknown technique.

11 The system is incompatible with the surprising principle. The adopting of new techniques and principles, which we consider valid in any conditions, could create unexpected effects for those initiating them and not for the adversary. An open field ambush can also surprise the adversary by means of changing the conditions that are apparently unconceivable: camouflaging, protecting, standard structures. The above stated principles are unconceivable without the permanent providing of the actions and force security. Being safe means: the peace of mind and trust that you have being safe from any other danger [7]. Basically, the action security principle and the force imply the accomplishing of measures and actions which can prevent the surprise adversary attacks, to maintain the permanent combat capacity for the friendly force. In order to accomplish all these, it is necessary that, regardless of the hierarchy, the commandants establish specific research actions, safety actions and protection action. The modern theory on this principle highlights the significance of the content, the requirement of not allowing the adversary to obtain an expected advantage, by means of acting to protect the force. Of course, the force protecting increases its own strength, but it shouldn t lead to prudence excesses, to lack of initiative or to risks unassuming, which might risk the success of the mission. The clear defining principle has been introduced lately within the Romanian theory and practice. Beyond the ideal controversies, the stated principle comes to highlight the necessity to settle tasks and the responsibilities of the elements responsible for the combat, according to armed plan and to the unique operations. Every action, from the smallest hierarchy, to the integrating one must subject itself, by mean s of conception, and execution, to the general effort and goal. The clear defining of the goal implies not only the general character statements, but also an entire chain of goals, which must be reached within different stages of the confrontation. As simple as it is, the clear defining of the goal implies the answering to the following questions: what adversary, where is the adversary, who is the adversary, where is the adversary, when does the adversary act, how does the adversary act? The accomplishing of the laws and principles of the combat fight does not represent armed great advantages, as long as he stays at the same level of knowledge and is not aware of the operational effects. The essential requirement is not an advantage, as it sticks to this level of knowledge and

12 does not accomplish the operational instrument. It is represented by the conscious aspect of the laws effects and principles applying of the military practice armed combat. Thus, the real requirements of the laws are materialized by means of the principles, regulations, and norms as an indestructible unity between the military science that study the former ones and the art itself, as armed support to implement the latter ones. REFERENCES [1] Cf. Col. Dr Arsenie, Valentin, Principii ale luptei armate în războiul întregului popor, Bucharest Military Publishing House, 1989, p. 11 [2] Doctrina operaţională a trupelor de uscat R.T.U. no. 3-4/99, p. 68 [3] Cf. Dr Bărbulescu, Ionel, Dr. Habian, Liviu, Lege, principiu, normă a luptei armate, corelaţii, Ager Publishing House, 2003, p. 152 [4] Cf. Lupta armată, Bucharest, Military Publishing House, 1978, p. 119 [5] Cf. Col. Dr Arsenie, Valentin, Principii ale luptei în războiul întregului popor, Bucharest, Military Publishing House, 1987, p. 44 [6] Sichitiu, I., Ioaniţiu, Al., Elemente de strategie, Bucharest, Atelierele Cartea Românească, 1934, p. 46 [7] Cf. DEX, Bucharest, Encyclopaedic Universe, 1998, p. 985