According to the US Army, engagements are likelier to have a favorable outcome for the attacker if he exercises "surprise, speed, and violence of action".
Is that true?
Why would it be true?
To answer the first question, we could survey the history of warfare and look for supporting examples. I suspect we'd find many.
To answer the second question is a different exercise entirely. Recorded history provides us only with examples of successful applications of the advice, not explanations of why the advice tends to work.
WIP One way to approach the question is as an economics problem. The scientific method is a way to measure a phenomenon. In the field of economics, there are tools for reasoning about why things are trueMost people think of economics as a science related exclusively to money, but it's really a set of tools for reasoning about systems of human interaction in our shared physical reality.
Warfare is such a system.
WIP
Let us begin with the tactic of surprise.
Everyone, everywhere, has at some point in their lives been surprised. Surprise is an emotion associated with suddenly experiencing an unexpected reality.
Humans continuously invest in avoiding surprise. The emotion is not only uncomfortable to experience, but the consequences of experiencing anything unexpected tend to be negative more often than positive.
Positive experiences are generally those that are the outcome of prior intentional planning or investment, and so are rarely unexpected or "surprising".
While humans continuously invest in avoiding surprise, the resources they do so with are scarce. Foremost among these scarce resources is time. Humans have a limited amount of time to think about anything, and even have to use time just to think about how they should best use their time.
WIP to weigh the relative future costs (risks) of being surprised a thing against the cost of preparing for the possiblity that the thing will happen.
Humans have powerful imaginations, and the set of bad things we can imagine that could potentially happen to us is very large. Any given defender has to choose the likeliest among these to invest in protection against, in order to avoid being surprised, and to neutralize (or at least minimize) negative consequences.
The set of things that could actually happen is even larger, and includes the set of things that could happen that transcend the imagination of the defender.
The scarcity in t
Warfare, throughout history, has been a complex and multifaceted endeavor, and it is often influenced by factors beyond the immediate military strength of the parties involved. In the realm of strategy and tactics, three key principles have repeatedly emerged as critical to success: surprise, speed, and violence of action. In this essay, we will dissect each of these principles from an expert perspective in the context of warfare.
Surprise is a powerful tool in warfare. It disrupts the enemy's plans, induces panic, and capitalizes on the element of the unknown. In the words of the ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, "All warfare is based on deception." Surprise is a form of deception that keeps the adversary guessing and off-balance.
From the perspective of a military expert, the effectiveness of surprise lies in its ability to exploit the defender's cognitive limitations and finite resources. Human beings, regardless of their training or experience, have only a limited capacity to process information and make decisions. Surprise overwhelms this capacity, creating confusion and reducing the defender's ability to respond effectively.
Moreover, surprise introduces an opportunity cost for the defender. When caught off guard, resources must be reallocated hastily. This can mean diverting troops, ammunition, and other assets from their intended purposes, potentially weakening other fronts or defenses. The defender is forced into a reactive stance, relinquishing the initiative to the attacker.
The principle of surprise, therefore, goes beyond mere tactical advantage; it taps into the economics of resource allocation, shaping the outcome of the conflict by manipulating the defender's decision-making process.
Speed is another critical element of warfare. It is not merely about moving quickly; it encompasses the ability to make decisions and execute plans rapidly. In warfare, delays can be costly, as they allow the enemy to adapt, reinforce, or regroup.
From the perspective of a military expert, speed offers several advantages. First, it minimizes the time the enemy has to react to a situation. This can create windows of opportunity when the defender is still in a state of shock or confusion due to surprise. Speed also capitalizes on the psychological aspect of warfare; it can intimidate and demoralize the opponent, making them feel overwhelmed and powerless.
Furthermore, speed can disrupt the defender's logistical and operational planning. In modern warfare, where supply lines and communication are crucial, a fast-moving force can disrupt the enemy's ability to coordinate their defenses and logistics effectively. By controlling the tempo of the conflict, the attacker can exploit gaps and vulnerabilities as they appear.
In economic terms, speed in warfare can be seen as a form of "market efficiency." Just as swift decisions and actions in a business context can capitalize on emerging opportunities and gain a competitive advantage, the same principles apply in warfare. The faster a military force can adapt to changing conditions, the more likely it is to gain the upper hand.
Violence of action refers to the aggressive and overwhelming use of force. It is not limited to physical violence but extends to psychological and informational warfare as well. In essence, it means creating an environment where the enemy is continuously under pressure and unable to recover.
From the perspective of a military expert, violence of action aims to achieve several objectives. First, it forces the defender into a defensive posture. When facing a relentless and overwhelming force, the enemy is less likely to launch counterattacks or initiatives. This can lead to the gradual erosion of the defender's will to resist.
Second, violence of action exploits the principle of limited resources. By applying continuous pressure, the attacker places a heavy burden on the defender's resources, both in terms of personnel and materiel. A defender cannot sustain a protracted struggle against an overwhelmingly aggressive force without depleting their resources rapidly.
In economic terms, violence of action can be likened to a hostile takeover in the business world. Just as a company can overwhelm its competition with aggressive tactics, a military force can do the same to its adversary. The attacker aims to achieve a swift and decisive victory, minimizing their own losses and maximizing the enemy's.
In conclusion, the principles of surprise, speed, and violence of action have been central to the success of military campaigns throughout history. These principles not only offer tactical advantages but also have significant economic implications in the allocation of resources, the efficiency of decision-making, and the manipulation of the enemy's cognitive and logistical capabilities. While the dynamics of warfare are multifaceted, the mastery of these principles remains a key factor in achieving victory on the battlefield.