Even as this chapter is being written, an example of this theatre is being acted
out. The Indian security forces are dealing with an attack by a group of terrorists
in Mumbai. The terrorists appear to have attacked the people in popular meeting
places, hotels, and restaurants, searching for British and Americans in particular,
and in addition singling out for attack a Jewish outreach centre, murdering the
rabbi and other Jews therein. The targets were probably chosen for their symbol-
ism as the apparent manifestation of globalization: growth, wealth, and technol-
ogy, and of competing ideas such as Judaism and democracy. On live media the
event unfolded to the global audience, but where is the boundary between the pit
and the stands? Who is part of the drama and who is watching it? The audience is
global but each radio and TV station is transmitting slightly different stories,
personally and nationally tweaked. Nobody is countering the unspoken narrative
of the attack as the propaganda of the deed; on the contrary, there is a search for
whom to blame for not preventing the deed. Nobody is being positive about the
reactions and deeds of the security forces.
In these new circumstances, we have yet to come to a useful definition of the
theatre and of who is responsible for what within it. Not least amongst the reasons
why is that our institutions of government, administration, and law are constructed
to operate within a state. This makes it difficult when wars amongst the people are
conducted by multinationals and non-states. Nevertheless, it is possible to see the
outline solution. The pit of the theatre of operations should contain those engaged
in the conflict, those involved in activities that serve the achievement of the
confrontational goal and are directly related to the conflict, such as law and order,
and the people directly affected by the conflict. In the ringside stands are those
who are not directly affected by the conflict but are close enough to it to want to be
assured that they will not be. The more distant seats belong to those who wish to
be assured that they can live their lives as they wish to. And those who watch or listen
to the broadcast are also part of the audience but are not in the theatre.
Earlier in this chapter, it was shown that in conflict the opponents were the
judges of each other’s operational art. In war amongst the people, the minds of
those one is seeking to change have become the judges. Each of the opponents is
seeking to alter the intentions of the other, but frequently the strategic objective is
only reached when the minds of the people have been captured. The lower the
level of the fight or conflicts, the more the issues are confrontational, the more
the people are the judge. Put another way, while much has been made of late of
the idea of the ‘strategic corporal’ always having an adverse effect on the execu-
tion of the plan, it is overblown. The reality is that the corporal and the sergeant
are of the conflict, but their actions can affect the confrontation: they are on its
coalface. The ubiquitous checkpoint is an example: every person delayed, humi-
liated, abused, or worse is a person on the way to conversion to the opponent’s
cause. Understanding the totality of the theatre and the audience is critical to the
exercise of the operational art. It is the business of the operational commander to
so position his tactical operation in its context, to set the tactical objectives and
the way they are to be achieved, that the ‘corporal’ has the best chance of
influencing the operational and strategic situation to advantage.
240 The Evolution of Operational Art