Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
Wilf, you tend to think at the tactical level only.
Sorry but that is patently not true. How many times do I refer to the need for a strategy that reflects the policy and strategy achievable in tactics? Ever read any of my posts? This is what I spend most of my time writing and talking about.
A tactic that doesn't serve the operational plan and a operational plan that doesn't serve the strategy - that's never good, no matter how well it looks on the tactical level.
Strategy can only be enacted by tactics. An operational plan merely ensures that tactics occur in the time and place relevant to the strategy. There is NO linkage between tactics and operations, other to ensure the time and place relevant to the strategy.
A battalion ready to sortie is an effective deterrent against open warfare. Even sitting in the own camp and fighting only to protect camp & convoys serves a purpose. That purpose is not in what you achieve, but in what you prevent.
I disagree. Yes deterrence is critical/essential, but you have to do things to make it real. Traditional Deterrence only works if the enemy believes in the credibility of the threat. That means going out and being very threatening and real. Nuke deterrence was based on mutual destruction and thus the absence of strategy.