Chapter Two

Theory of War

War has been a persistent pattern of interaction between and within states and other political
units for millennia. In its many varieties, it is probably the most destructive form of human
behavior. War kills people, destroys resources, retards economic development, ruins
environments, spreads disease, expands governments, militarizes societies, reshapes cultures,
disrupts families, and traumatizes people. Preparation for war, whether for conquest or for
protection, diverts valued resources from more constructive social activities, and it often
undermines security rather than enhances it.

2.1 What is War

War defines broadly as sustained, coordinated violence between political organizations. Such a
definition includes great power wars like World War I, colonial wars like those fought by the
European great powers in Africa and Asia from the eighteenth century to early twentieth century,
civil wars like those in the United States in the nineteenth century or in the Congo or in
Yugoslavia in the 1990s, organized insurgencies like the one against American forces in the Iraq
War, tribal wars among pre - modern societies, and a wide variety of other forms of violence. It
involves the use of force to kill and injure people and destroy military and economic resources.
War may Interstate (wars between different countries) or intrastate (Domestic) wars, however,
constitute only one manifestation of the wide variety of sustained, coordinated violence that we
observe over the millennia. In addition to fighting other states in interstate wars, states fight
domestic challengers in internal or civil wars for the control of the state or for secession from the
state. Those domestic challengers may fight each other. States may also fight with non state
actors. (Jack S. Levy and William R. Thompson 2010)

Among the popular definition of war is Clausewitz definition. According to him, War is an
extension of politics by other means. This means war is not an end by itself it is a means to
achieve the political objectives using military forces.

War has its own nature, character and way of conduct.

Nature, Character and Conduct of war

Character of war Conduct of war

Nature of /Who fights for what /How fight/
War purpose/

Technology
Danger
Objective Strategy
Friction
focus/countries Out come
Uncertainty
coalition Types of war
Fluidity
States (Conventional /
Chaos
governments unconventional
Complex
(guerrilla)
Physical,
emotional,
psychological
War as a unique social phenomenon it is:
influence
Human
War is danger factor
Violent Armed conflict its out come /result is destruction/ catastrophic Death,
is decisive
sufferings, fears, courage /heroism. The means of war is force, applied in the form of
organized violence. It is through the use of violence, or the credible threat of violence, that
we compel our enemy to do our will. Violence is an essential element of war, and its
immediate result is bloodshed, destruction, and suffering. While the magnitude of violence
may vary with the object and means of war, the violent essence of war will never change.
However, the danger can be reduced through unit cohesion, training and increasing war
efficiency e.t.c.

War is friction it is conducted between the thinking human beings. Its cause is antagonistic
contradiction of interests. The very essence of war as a clash between opposed wills creates
friction. In this dynamic environment of interacting forces, friction abounds. Friction may be
mental, as in indecision over a course of action. It may be physical, as in effective enemy fire
or a terrain obstacle that must be overcome. Friction may be external, imposed by enemy
action, the terrain, weather, or mere chance. Friction may be self-induced, caused by such
factors as lack of a clearly defined goal, lack of coordination, unclear or complicated plans,
complex task organizations or command relationships, or complicated technologies.
Whatever form it takes, because war is a human enterprise, friction will always have a
 psychological as well as a physical impact. However, friction can be reduced through
developing strength, experience based decision making, training etc
Uncertainty it is difficult to achieve the desired end state as war is complex
social phenomenon. Adversaries /belligerents/ enter in to war with inadequate (incomplete)
some times deceived information as war is not natural science which tested using laboratory
mechanism. However, Continuous knowledge of belligerent /Enemy/, maintaining constant
readiness and improving leadership capacity can simplify the problem of uncertainty, we
must realize that we cannot eliminate themor even come close. The very nature of war
makes certainty impossible; all actions in war will be based on incomplete, inaccurate, or
even contradictory information.

War is Fluidity it require mental flexibility. In war there exists constant change of time in
both enemy and friendly situations. This indicates that, it requires close fallow up and
appreciation of situations studying the nature and character of enemy and preparing oneself
Chaos in war all mentioned create chaos. In an environment of friction, uncertainty,
and fluidity, war gravitates naturally toward chaos or disorder. Like the other attributes of
war, chaos or disorder is an inherent characteristic of war; we can never eliminate it. In the
heat of battle, plans will go awry, instructions and information will be unclear and
misinterpreted, communications will fail, and mistakes and unforeseen events will be
commonplace. It is precisely this natural disorder which creates the conditions ripe for
exploitation by an opportunistic will.
War is Complex with diverse weapon systems, several units with their specific task and
functions. We have described war as essentially a clash between opposed wills. In reality,
each belligerent is not a single, homogeneous will guided by a single intelligence. Instead,
each belligerent is a complex system consisting of numerous individual parts. A division
comprises regiments, a regiment comprises battalions, and so on all the way down to fire
teams which are composed of individuals. Each element is part of a larger whole and must
cooperate with other elements for the accomplishment of the common goal. At the same time,
each has its own mission and must adapt to its own situation. Each must deal with friction,
uncertainty, and disorder at its own level and each may create friction, uncertainty, and
disorder for others, friendly as well as enemy. As a result, war is not governed by the actions
 or decisions of a single individual in any one place but emerges from the collective behavior
of all the individual parts in the system interacting.

There is Physical, emotional, psychological influence in war. War is characterized by the

interaction of physical, moral, and mental forces. The physical characteristics of war are
generally easily seen, understood, and measured: equipment capabilities, supplies, physical
objectives seized, force ratios, losses of materiel or life, terrain lost or gained, prisoners or
materiel captured. The moral characteristics are less tangible. (The term moral as used here
is not restricted to ethics, although ethics are certainly included, but pertains to those forces
of a psychological rather than tangible nature.).
Moral forces are difficult to grasp and impossible to quantify. Mental forces provide the
ability to grasp complex battlefield situations; to make effective estimates, calculations, and
decisions; to devise tactics and strategies; and to develop plans. Although material factors are
more easily quantified, the moral and mental forces exert a greater influence on the nature
and outcome of war. For example, the greatest effect of fires is generally not the amount of
physical destruction they cause, but the effect of that physical destruction on the enemys
moral strength. Because it is difficult to come to grips with moral and mental forces, it is
tempting to exclude them from our study of war. However, any doctrine or theory of war that
neglects these factors ignores the greater part of the nature of war.

Human factor is decisive to shoulder all the burden of war and achieve desired end state
/victory / human being is the decisive force. In other wards it human that determine the
outcome of the war. Because war is a clash between opposing human wills, the human
dimension is central in war. It is the human dimension which infuses war with its intangible
moral factors. War is shaped by human nature and is subject to the complexities,
inconsistencies, and peculiarities which characterize human behavior.

From this we can conclude that the nature of war does not change but the character and conduct
of war will change.

2.2 Causes of War

Scholars from a wide range of disciplines philosophy, history, political science, theology,
anthropology, sociology, psychology, economics, mathematics, biology, literature, and others
have engaged the questions of what causes war and how humankind might eliminate war or at
least bring it under greater control. Their efforts have led to a proliferation of theories but to no
consensus as to the causes of war or of other forms of social violence. Scholars disagree not only
on the specific causes of war, but also on how to approach the study of war. It is not surprising
that there are divisions between scholars in different countries (Wver, 1998) and in different
disciplines that psychologists generally emphasize psychological factors, that economists
emphasize economic factors, that anthropologists emphasize cultural factors, and so on. Let us
see how different disciplines put the cause of war.
Theological reasoning
Curse from the Creator
Genetic explanation
Aggressive behaviour of human beings
Psychologists explanation
Frustration
Misperception
Misunderstanding
Miscalculation
Sociologists explanation
Inability to solve contradicting interests in peaceful means
Social division of classes as the only cause of war
The emergence of social classes created rivalry on resources
Abolishing classes difference is the only solution to end with war.
Economic explanation
International security expert Michael T. Klare argues that in the early decades of the new
millennium, wars will be fought not over ideology but over access to dwindling supplies of
precious natural commodities like oil, water, diamond, gold e.t.c.
Natural resources are never the only source of a conflict. Any given conflict is brought about by
a complex set of events; often poverty, ethnic or religious grievances, and unstable governments
also play major roles. But even after these factors have been taken into account, studies
consistently find that natural resources heighten the danger that a civil war will break out, and
once it breaks out, that conflict will be more difficult to resolve (Prof. Michael Ross, 2002) .
Let us take water as example. Water conflicts are disputes or wars triggered
or fueled by competing access to water resources by countries, states, or
groups. Water bears many similarities to oil. It is essential for a wide range of
human activities, and it exists in relatively finite amounts. Once the available
supply is exhausted, moreover, additional quantities can be acquired only
through heroic and costly efforts. Water has historically been a source of
tension and a factor in conflicts that start for other reasons. Interstate
conflicts occur between two or more neighboring countries that share a
trans-boundary water source, such as a river, sea, or ground water basin. As
the Kenyan professor Patricia states, in 1979, Egyptian President Anwar
Sadat said: The only matter that could take Egypt to war again is water. In
1988 then-Egyptian Foreign Minister Boutros-Ghali, who later became the
United Nations Secretary-General, predicted that the next war in the Middle
East would be fought over the waters of the Nile, not politics.

2.3 Levels of War

To understand modern theories of war and conflict and to prosecute them successfully, the
military professional must thoroughly understand the three levels of war strategic, operational
and tactical levels of war, and how they are interrelated. Each level is concerned with planning
(making strategy), which involves analyzing the situation, estimating friendly and enemy
capabilities and limitations, and devising possible courses of action.

1. Strategic Level

The strategic level focuses on defining and supporting national policy and relates directly to the
outcome of a war or other conflict as a whole. Usually, modern wars and conflicts are won or lost
at this level rather than at the operational or tactical levels. The strategic level applies to all forms
of war and conflict from military activities short of war through insurgent, conventional, and
nuclear warfare. This level involves a strategic concept, plans for preparing all national
instruments of power for war or conflict, practical guidance for preparing the armed forces, and
leadership of the armed forces to achieve strategic objectives.
2. Operational Level

The operational level is concerned with employing military forces in a theater of war or theater
of operations to obtain an advantage over the enemy and thereby attain strategic goals through
the design, organization, and conduct of campaigns and major operations. In war, a campaign
involves employment of military forces in a series of related military operations to accomplish a
common objective in a given time and space. In activities short of war, a campaign consists of a
series of related military, economic, and political operations to accomplish a common objective
in a given time and space. Commanders should design, orchestrate, and coordinate operations
and exploit tactical events to support overall campaign objectives. Where and when to conduct a
campaign is based on objectives, the threat, and limitations imposed by geographical, economic,
and cultural environments, as well as the numbers and types of military resources available.

3. Tactical Level
In the traditional sense, the various operations that make up a campaign are themselves made up
of maneuvers, engagements, and battles. From this perspective, the tactical level translates
potential combat power into success in battles and engagements through decisions and actions
that create advantages when in contact with or in proximity to the enemy. Tactics deal in the
details of prosecuting engagements and are extremely sensitive to the changing environment of
the battlefield. Thus, in conventional warfare; the focus of the tactical level is generally on
military objectives and combat. However, combat is not an end in itself; it is the means to
achieve goals set at the operational level.
 National Policy
National Security Strategy
National Military Strategy

Campaign Plan

Plan Major Operations

Battles
Engagements

2.4 Types of War

2.4.1 Based on conduct of war, war can be Conventional or Unconventional war

Conventional war is a form of warfare conducted by using conventional weapons and

battlefield tactics between two or more states in open confrontation. The forces on each side are
well-defined, and fight using weapons that primarily target the opponent's military. It is normally
fought using conventional weapons, and not with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. The
general purpose of conventional warfare is to weaken or destroy the opponent's military, thereby
negating its ability to engage in conventional warfare..

Unconventional war defines as activities conducted to enable a resistance movement or

insurgency to coerce, disrupt, or overthrow a government or occupying power by operating
through or with an underground, auxiliary, and guerrilla force in a denied area. In unconventional
war asymmetry is common. One side may have sophisticated technology, highly train manpower,
large size and well design structure that the other part do not have. Unconventional warfare is the
primary method by which low intensity conflict is fought.
According to U.S field manual for unconventional warfare unconventional warfare define as: "A
broad spectrum of military and paramilitary operations conducted in enemy-held, enemy
controlled or politically sensitive territory. Unconventional warfare includes, but is not limited
to, the interrelated fields of guerrilla warfare, evasion and escape, subversion, sabotage, and
other operations of a low visibility, covert or clandestine nature. These interrelated aspects of
unconventional warfare may be prosecuted singly or collectively by predominantly indigenous
personnel, usually supported and directed in varying degrees by (an) external source(s) during all
conditions of war or peace.

2.4.2 Based on Justification, war can be just or unjust war

In order to understand whether the war is just or unjust it is better looking Ethics of war.
Ethics of War
Three views are considered when talking about the morality of war. They are realism, pacifism,
and the just war theory. Each of them has its own beliefs regarding the ethics of warfare.
1. Realism.
The realist says that we cannot find morality in war and that morality cannot be applied in war.
Realism is sometimes presented as the thesis that ethics does not apply to war. The realist
believes that a state should always be thinking about its own national interest. A state should
therefore do whatever it thinks to be beneficial to its national interest, even if it is to wage a war
against other states. The state then must do whatever it takes to win the war and get what it
wants, so morality is never applicable to war and international affairs. Realists believe that
morality is for individual persons only and not for the state because the states playground, the
international ground, is harsh and the state needs to protect its people and its interest from other
states. The state cannot therefore afford to apply morality when dealing with international affairs.
Some of the prominent realists are Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes.

There are two kinds of realism, descriptive realism and prescriptive realism. Descriptive realism
says that states cannot act morally in times of war or that states do not act morally in times of
war. Descriptive realism described the international stage as a stage wherein morality cannot be
applied. States in the international stage cannot or do not apply morality when interacting with
one another because they are in a competition. Prescriptive realism says that the state ought to
disregard morality when dealing with other state to protect its interest. This is because it is
believed that states always do whats best for them and if a state applies morality when dealing
with other states, this state will lose the fight for what it wants. So, states must not behave
morally or must not consider morality when dealing with other states. One of the instances where
a state deals with other states is in war.

2. Pacifism.

The pacifist believes that we should never result into violence or war for whatever reason. Paul
Christopher wrote that The pacifist, abhorring the suffering caused by violence, concludes that
war is consummate evil and rejects it under all circumstance. The pacifist argues that wars can
never be morally justified and that we should not result into war no matter what. The roots of
pacifism can be found and traced back with the early Christians where the use of violence is
never permissible. Christian pacifist grounded their argument for the just war theory is
somewhere between realism and pacifism and it has provided a more balance view on the ethics
of war. Given the heaviness of the subject matter, the just war theory gave conditions on when
wars are to be considered just and when are they considered unjust. It is clear here that the
pacifist and the realist are both on the extreme views with regards to the ethics of war. The third
of these views regarding the morality of war is the just war theory which believes that sometimes
wars are just and sometimes they are not. Even if war is evil, we can find morality in it.

3. Just War Theory

The just war theory can be traced back to the teachings of Augustine, also known as the father of
the just war theory. Augustine believes that Just wars are usually defined as those which avenge
injuries, when the nation or city against which warlike action is to be directed has neglected
either to punish wrongs committed by its own citizens or to restore what has been unjustly taken
by it. Further, that kind of war is undoubtedly just which God Himself ordain.

At the present time, the just war theory is mainly divided into three parts and are said to be
independent of each other, meaning the justification for each are separate from one another. The
three main principles of the just war theory are jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum.
But philosophers have often been more concerned on the first two principles. It is only recent
that jus post bellum appeared into the debate.
3.1 Jus ad Bellum
The jus ad bellum is the principle which is concerned with the justification of resorting to war in
the first place. It tries to find a justification whether the war was waged justly or unjustly. War is
justified if and only if:

(1) Just cause why it resorted to war,

(2) Proper authority to declare a war
(3) Right intention for resorting into war
(4) Declared the war as a last resort
(5) High probability of success
(6) Proportionality of the good the war will produce to its costs.

Condition (1) requires that the state must have a just cause in waging war with other states. How
can we say that our cause in waging war is just? Waging a war against other states is only
permissible according to Augustine if it is to punish the wrongdoers and to restore morality and
peace. At the National Conference for Catholic Bishops, they stated that war is only permissible
if it is to confront a real and certain danger. War is only permissible if it is to defend ones state
from aggressors. Michael Walzer said in Just and Unjust Wars that the state and the individual
both have certain rights, the right to life and liberty for the individual, and the right for self
determination and territorial integrity for the state and both forfeits their rights if they violate the
rights of others.

For the individual, they will lose their right if they bear or produce arms. If the state or the
individual forfeits their rights, it is now justified for other states, or the victim state to go to war
against that state who initiated the aggression. Also, if one bears or produces arms he loses his
right to life and liberty and would be classified as a combatant. A state may wage war against a
state who initiated the aggression against them.

Condition (2) states that a war was justly waged or can be justly waged if it is declared only by
the proper authorities to declare it, like the heads of states and not by an individual or a private
group. Condition (3) requires a state to have the right intention in waging a war and the only
right intention for the just war theorists is the intention that supports the just cause. All intentions
for waging a war must be directed for the just cause. Intentions like revenge, resource grabbing,
or ethnic cleansing is clearly unacceptable. Condition (4) states that all peaceful means must
have been already tried to fix the conflict before one resorts into force. Condition (5), the high
probability of success, states that a state should ensure that they have a high probability of
success before going into war. Condition (6) requires the state to weigh in the proportionality of
the benefits of war to its costs. A state is only just to resort to war if the benefits to be gain in war
are proportionate or even larger that its costs. It means to say that the damage or the costs war
brings must be outweighed by the good that will come out of it. Somehow, this condition is
dependent on condition (1). This condition does not only involve the benefits and costs of the
party waging a war but also to their opponents and other parties involved. Each condition is
necessary but not sufficient conditions to justify jus ad bellum. The six conditions should be met
before one is considered justified in resorting to war.

3.2 Jus in Bello

Jus in bello is the principle of the just war theory that is concerned with the justification during
the conduct of war. The condition that should be met for jus in bello are the following:
(1) Discriminated between combatants and non-combatants
(2) Uses force proportional to the goal they want to achieve
(3) Performs right treatment of prisoners of war
(4) Follows international rules on weapons prohibition
(5) Does not use methods which are evil in themselves
(6) Performs no reprisals

Condition (1) states that in the midst of battle only combatants are considered legitimate targets
of an attack. One should know how to discriminate between non-combatants and combatants.
Many philosophers have argued that in war we should distinguish the combatants from the non-
combatants. This paper agrees that a clear distinction between the two should be discussed
together with the appropriate justice they can get from their actions in times of war. To have a
clear distinction of the non-combatants from the combatants let us further examine on who
qualifies as combatants.

In the earlier discussion, we have seen in Walzers explanation that an individual has a right to
life and liberty and he loses this right if he bears arms or if he poses a threat to others right to
life and liberty. In other words, those who do not bear arms and those who do not show any
threat to other individuals right to life and liberty are considered noncombatants. These are the
civilians. While individuals like soldiers, who bear arms, are considered combatants which
means that they do not have any right to life and liberty and they are considered a permissible
target of an attack in war. Discrimination between the combatants and non-combatants is very
important in a war. The distinction given by Walzer, that anyone who bears arms and poses harm
to others may not be enough to distinguish on who are to be considered as combatants.

Condition (2) is somewhat similar to the proportionality condition of jus ad bellum. In the essay
of Robert Holmes entitled Can War be Morally Justified? he identified the proportionality
requirement of jus in bello to be exactly similar to that of the jus ad bellum, that the cost or harm
of war must be proportioned to the good it will bring. Some just war theorists clarified this by
saying that the force to be used must be proportioned or be outweighed by the end it seeks.
Condition (3) states that we should treat Prisoners of War (POWs) well and with benevolence.

They are not anymore to be considered combatants because they have been disarmed and are
harmless. Condition (4) restricts the use of weapons which are prohibited in the international law
like Nuclear and Biological weapons. These are weapons which are hard to contain when used
for an attack. Condition (5) restricts the use of methods like genocide, rape, and other inhumane
methods which are evil in themselves. Condition (6) states that one should not take revenge with
the other state with the same jus in bello violation method used against them.

3.3 Jus post Bellum

Jus post bellum is just new in the just war theory. It is concerned with the justification on the
termination of war. This is still being debated upon and unsettled in the just war tradition. It
proposes conditions as follows:13 There is justice in the termination of Ss war if and only if:
(1) Creates proportional peace settlements with the enemy and it is publicly announced
(2) Accounts for those who commit war crimes and punish them accordingly
(3) Settlements secures basic human rights
(4) Gives compensation and rehabilitation

Condition (1) states that peace settlements must be properly studied upon and be publicly
announced. Condition (2) states that those who commit war crimes must be tried in courts, and if
found guilty, needs to serve the corresponding punishments. Condition (3) states that the basic
human rights must be restored Condition (4) states that rehabilitation and compensation for
damages must be served after the war.
2.5 The Principles of War
For centuries, many military organizations subscribed to the idea that there exists a set of guiding
principles or ideas that guide the conduct and study of war. These guiding principles are known
as the Principles of War. There has never been universal agreement on one common list of
principles. Most nations have their own list of principles, based on their military culture,
experience and heritage. Principles of War are a guide to actions concerning the application of
combat power, rather than an unquestioned truth with universal application to every single
operation. Principles are not substitutes for professional understanding, experience and
education. They help provide a better understanding of warfare but these are only guidelines and
not a prescription, formula, recipe or checklist for success. They are guidelines for action
and they embody the fundamental constructs of military thought. The
application of such principles must be exercised in the context of judgment,
and therefore is highly subjective in nature. Quite simply, the proper
application of the principles of war in order to achieve success on the
battlefield is an art form rather than a scientific method. The following principles
are principles of war for most western countries with some small modification to their own
situation.

1. Objective
Objective means purpose. The fundamental purpose of war is the destruction of your enemys
armed forces and their will to fight. Each operation in military planning must contribute to this
ultimate strategic aim. Direct every military operation toward a clearly defined, decisive, and
attainable objective. At the operational and tactical levels, objective means ensuring all actions
contribute to the strategic objective. The principle of the objective drives all military activity.
When undertaking any mission, commanders should have a clear understanding of the expected
outcome and its impact. At the strategic level, this means having a clear vision of the operational
end state. Commanders need to appreciate political ends and understand how the military
conditions they achieve contribute to them.

2. Offensive
Offensive actionmoving toward and engaging your enemies and their assets, including lines of
supply and communicationis the most effective and decisive way to attain a clearly defined
common objective. Offensive operations are the way you seize the initiative while maintaining
freedom of action and achieving decisive results. This principle of offensive action is critical to
all levels of war you might experience.

3. Mass
Achieving mass means organizing all the elements of combat power at your disposal to have
decisive effect on your enemy very quickly. Commanders mass the effects of combat power to
overwhelm enemies or gain control of the situation. They mass combat power in time and space
to achieve both destructive and constructive results. Massing in time applies the elements of
combat power against multiple targets simultaneously. Massing in space concentrates the effects
of different elements of combat power against a single target. Both dominate the situation;
commanders select the method that best fits the circumstances. To an increasing degree, joint and
Army operations mass the full effects of combat power in both time and space, rather than one or
the other. Such effects overwhelm the entire enemy defensive system before he can react
effectively. The massing effect has two distinct advantages: It allows a numerically inferior force
to achieve decisive results and limits your units exposure to enemy fire.

4. Economy of Force
Sometimes, less is more. To achieve mass effectively at the decisive point and time on the
battlefield, you need to effectively coordinate and allocate your force. Economy of force is the
principle that helps you to judiciously employ and distribute your force. In battle, all parts of
your force must act. You should never leave part of the force without a purpose. That doesnt
mean everyone has to do the same thing. You need to coordinate and employ your Soldiers using
all available combat power, even while you are engaged in such tasks as limited attacks, defense,
delays, deception, or retrograde operations.

5. Maneuver
Maneuver Place the enemy in a disadvantageous position through the flexible application of
combat power. As both an element of combat power and a principle of war, maneuver
concentrates and disperses combat power to place and keep the enemy at a disadvantage. It
achieves results that would otherwise be more costly. Effective maneuver keeps enemies off
balance by making them confront new problems and new dangers faster than they can deal with
them. Army forces gain and preserve freedom of action, reduce vulnerability, and exploit success
through maneuver. Maneuver is more than just fire and movement. It includes the dynamic,
flexible application of leadership, firepower, information, and protection as well. It requires
flexibility in thought, plans, and operations and the skillful application of mass, surprise, and
economy of force.

6. Unity of Command
Unity of command means that all of your forces are acting under one responsible commander.
Unity of command and unity of effort at all levels of war refer to using your military forces to
mass combat power toward a common objective. Success on the battlefield demands that a single
commander hold the authority to direct all forces toward the objective in a unified, coordinated
effort.

7. Security
War is a risky business. To be successful, you need to be willing to take necessary, calculated
risks to preserve your force and defeat your enemy. Protecting and securing your force, in turn,
leaves you free to take those risks. Security results from measures taken by a command to protect
itself from surprise, interference, sabotage, annoyance, and threat ISR. Military deception greatly
enhances security. The threat of asymmetric action requires emphasis on security, even in low-
threat environments.

8. Surprise
Surprise Strike the enemy at a time or place or in a manner for which he is unprepared.
Surprise is the reciprocal of security. Surprise results from taking actions for which an enemy or
adversary is unprepared. It is a powerful but temporary combat multiplier. It is not essential to
take the adversary or enemy completely unaware; it is only necessary that he become aware too
late to react effectively. Factors contributing to surprise include speed, information superiority,
deception and asymmetry. Surprise can come in size of force; direction or location of main
effort; and timing.

9. Simplicity
Simplicity contributes to successful military operations. Simple plans lead to better
understanding of a commanders intent and assist leadership at all levels to accomplish the
mission. Simple plans and clear, concise orders minimize the possibility of misunderstanding and
can limit confusion. It pays to remember to simplify a plan or operation by finding the longest
pole in the tentaddressing priorities first and not sweating less significant details until later.
Simplicity is especially critical when you and your Soldiers are tired or stressed. So keep the
number of moving parts to a minimum. All things being equal, the simplest plan is usually the
best.