Citat:
USAF avser inte krig som endast berör flygvapnet. De avser krig-krig där alla delar av försvaret är involverade. Army University Press definierar nivåerna på samma sätt som USAF som jag har förstått det; Sedan, bara så att vi är på det klara med din hänvisning, så är det USAF som opererar sådant. USAF är flyget och därmed endast verkandes utefter sin part i 'krig'. Flyg samt operativt luftväsen (robotar, bombningar) bygger alla på att genom strategiskt underlätta för den taktiska fasen som kommer efteråt. Ville bara klargöra att USAF inte talar för hela operationer, vinst eller förlust. Det samma gäller USMCA. Dessa båda falanger bygger på två doktriner - strategiskt utförande, oavsett offensivt eller defensivt.
Citat:
i en artikel som berör studenternas på West Points svårigheter att förstå de här skillnaderna mellan nivåerna. Bland annat leder det till missuppfattningen att krig avgörs på taktisk nivå. Här är en artikel av J. Boone Bartholomees vid namn "Theory of Victory" i peer-review The US army war college Quarterly: Parameters som pedagogiskt förklarar vad seger är;
Strategic level - National policy
Operationl level - Campaigns
Tactical level - Battles
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/November-December-2021/Harvey-Levels-of-War/
Operationl level - Campaigns
Tactical level - Battles
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/November-December-2021/Harvey-Levels-of-War/
Citat:
Även tankesmedjorna verkar förklara detta på liknande sätt. Scott N. Romaniuk, forskare vid Trento universitet skriver detta för Defense Report;
The characteristic of perspective allows observers to think of victory in war as three-tiered: tactical, operational, and strategic. Because winning tactically is a fairly straightforward and almost exclusively military activity, it is best understood and generally assessed using reasonably quantifiable criteria.
Measures of effectiveness such as comparative casualty ratios, ground taken or lost, and prisoners captured all have weight and can produce a reasonable estimate of victory or defeat that is likely to be widely accepted. Operational victory is similarly transparent at least in its purest form; the campaign succeeds or fails based on criteria that are usually well understood and quantifiable. Strategic victory, however, is a more complicated issue. Which level is most important? It is tempting to respond that all are equally important, but that would be incorrect. What counts in the end is the strategic outcome
https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2419&context=parameters
Measures of effectiveness such as comparative casualty ratios, ground taken or lost, and prisoners captured all have weight and can produce a reasonable estimate of victory or defeat that is likely to be widely accepted. Operational victory is similarly transparent at least in its purest form; the campaign succeeds or fails based on criteria that are usually well understood and quantifiable. Strategic victory, however, is a more complicated issue. Which level is most important? It is tempting to respond that all are equally important, but that would be incorrect. What counts in the end is the strategic outcome
https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2419&context=parameters
Citat:
The strategic level of warfare, what is sometimes referred to as “military strategy,” regards the orchestration of war at the highest level of planning/preparation and execution. It involves as much the political as it does the military dimension. The strategic level of planning considers the endgame of a given conflict or war. When speaking about this level of warfare, one is ultimately concerned with the how a war will be won, and what the specific steps are that will lead to victory
https://defencereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Romaniuk-Military-Strategy-and-the-Three-Levels-of-Warfare.pdf
https://defencereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Romaniuk-Military-Strategy-and-the-Three-Levels-of-Warfare.pdf
Jag noterade att militärhistorikern Donald Stoker skrivit en bok vid namn; Why America Loses Wars: Limited War and US Strategy from the Korean War to the Present (Cambridge University Press, 2019). Jag har inte läst den men här är en recension vid Modern War institutet vid West Point. Ett utdrag från recensionen;
Citat:
Således, militärhistorikern Donald Stoker har alltså skrivit en bok om det bedrövliga i att sammanblanda taktik med strategi eftersom krigets utkomst avgörs på strategisk nivå och inte taktisk nivå. I USA har det resulterat i att USA förlorat de flesta av sina krig. Så vad kan vi konstatera? Att krig avgörs på strategisk nivå.
This book aims to clarify the conceptual muddle that is typically manifest in the theoretical and historical works on limited war. Stoker finds that the literature on this subject generally defines limited war, implicitly or explicitly, by the magnitude of means that the belligerents employ rather than by the political object and its limitations in scope and value. This puts the cart before the horse and does not comport with the most important idea found in On War, that the political object and its value determine the character and scope of the war.
Ends determine means, not the other way around. In other words, when waging war, America often fails to clearly define and comprehend the strategic logic that connects the fighting to the purpose of the war. This results in a focus on the how, or the means, rather than on the why and to what end, or the political object. Tactics are confused or conflated with strategy and the purpose of limited war becomes war itself, and not a victory linked to a better peace.
https://mwi.usma.edu/happens-tactics-take-primacy-strategy/
Ends determine means, not the other way around. In other words, when waging war, America often fails to clearly define and comprehend the strategic logic that connects the fighting to the purpose of the war. This results in a focus on the how, or the means, rather than on the why and to what end, or the political object. Tactics are confused or conflated with strategy and the purpose of limited war becomes war itself, and not a victory linked to a better peace.
https://mwi.usma.edu/happens-tactics-take-primacy-strategy/
Givet dina expertkunskaper bör det inte vara några problem för dig att hänvisa till källor som hävdar att krig avgörs på taktisk nivå. Du kan se det som en pedagogisk uppgift att förklara för oss icke-professionella vad som faktiskt gäller.
__________________
Senast redigerad av Edgerton 2022-12-23 kl. 14:49.
Senast redigerad av Edgerton 2022-12-23 kl. 14:49.
