terms of space, objective, opponent, forces, and resources allocated. While these
remain viable criteria, others have now to be considered as a consequence of two
characteristics of war amongst the people: the nature of the strategic objective and
that it takes place amongst the people.
Defining the point at which the two objectives need reconciling can also be
understood by considering where the currency changes, where the effect of firepower
has to be translated into the effect of information if it is to have value in achieving the
overall aim. Deciding the level of the fight is a mutual activity between opponents; it
is the point they engage in the relationship of battle. In industrial war, the side that
raised the largest amount of firepower dictated the level of the fight. In war amongst
the people, developed from the antithesis of industrial war, the militarily weaker side
deliberatelyoperates below the utility of the stronger opponent’s weapons and forces
as he would wish to use them. If the opponent tries to use large amounts of force, he
plays to the advantage of the weaker opponent’s strategy and risks losing the
confrontation rather than the conflict, and being unable to sustain the operation.
He learns to adjust the level of the fight and its nature to somewhere much closer to
that of his opponent. As a general rule, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, the level in terms
of the command hierarchy is about that of a commander of a reinforced company.
Thus, the point of currency exchange is at the level above that in the hierarchy;
company commanders and below should deal in firepower for objectives to do with
the conflict, while those above deal in information for objectives to do with the
confrontation.
The strategic objective for military force is to create a condition in which other
means alter intentions. Consider the metaphor of the Roman circus mentioned
earlier when describing the trends of war amongst the people. You are the director
of a gladiatorial contest and there is another production trying to go on at the same
time. Your object is to have everyone follow your production, your narrative is to
be the one used to understand the conflicting events in the pit, and yours is to be
the one all remember. In addition to the two sets of gladiators who come and go in
the pit, there are other people. Who are they? What are their relationships to the
other gladiators, can these be altered, and if so how? Are they in disguise? Where do
they stand in the confrontation? Which show did they buy tickets for? And in the
stands, who is the audience? What show did they come to see or do they just want
to be entertained? How are they to be communicated with and influenced? Who
are the opinion formers and where are they sitting? Every gladiatorial act, whether
of deployment, appearance in the pit, or employment against the other gladiators,
affects the people’s understanding. And always remember: the people are the home
audience of an army. Lose their interest and support, and you lose the battle no less
than if the opponent comes up with a master stroke. Those in the pit will have a
different view and thus understanding to those in the stands. What storyline does
the act support? What other means, lighting, scenery, and props are necessary?
Who in the audience is the target for the message? As has been found with the
operations in Afghanistan and more generally with the so-called war on terror,
defining the theatre in terms of political boundaries does not help find the answers
to these questions, let alone act on them.
Epilogue 239