Offense and Defense in Strategy

Abstract

The terms offense and defense are central to strategic questions, yet established conceptions relate to technical-tactical, operational, or political/ethical/legal aspects of war. While they are applicable to different levels of strategy, they are not necessarily compatible, and can not serve to classify strategy as a whole. This article proposes a strategic understanding of the two terms, and defines three strategic types of offense (imposition of control, compellence, exhaustion) and defense (repellence, deterrence by punishment, assertive disarmament). Any theory of victory must combine the two, but success for both sides in a conflict is easier to achieve in the defensive than in the offensive aspect.Scholars and practitioners of strategy require a set of terms with a common usage and understanding to deal with complex problems. Yet, perhaps due to the applied nature of the field, these terms and the concepts that stand behind them often do not attract the attention that they deserve. 1 This has been the case in particular with the terms offense and defense. They are used in many fields related to strategy-international law, ethics, or military operations and tactics-but in all of them they carry different connotations. In an academic context, they are most often viewed through the prism of 'offense-defense theory' which however is more directly applicable to the field of international relations than to strategic studies. In recent years, the U.S. invasion of Iraq-a clearly offensive action at the operational, if not political level, although justified in terms of self-defense-has brought into sharp relief the fact that these established conceptions depend on the level of analysis and generally lack a clear applicability to the concept of strategy. 2 Therefore, this article will discuss the concept of strategy and review common usages of the terms offense and defense. It then proposes a new, strategic understanding for both terms, and defines three strategic types of offense (imposition of control, compellence, exhaustion) and defense (repellence, deterrence by punishment, assertive disarmament). The Concept of StrategyClausewitz defines strategy as "the use of engagements for the object of the war," 3 war being "not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means." 4 Colin Gray defines strategy as "the bridge that relates military power to political purpose." 5 Strategy is the instrumental relationship between political goals, and the means and ways to achieve them against the opposition of an adversary. It can operate in war and peace alike, as military forces can be used to (primarily) physical effect in war, or to psychological effect in peace through the coercive threat of their use-resulting, if successful, in the aversion of undesired actions through deterrence, or inducement of desired behaviour through compellence.Violence and the threat of violence have strategic effect through several layers of strategy-technical-tactical...

Poder astuto: estrategia del empleo del poder en el siglo XXI

“…En este contexto, podría evidenciarse que la defensa en un nivel superior siempre sería congruente con una ofensiva en un nivel inferior. En última instancia, el propósito de las operaciones militares sería político; por lo tanto, el definir un objetivo ofensivo o defensivo dependería de las concepciones políticas, tanto éticas como legales (Frühling, 2009). En este orden de ideas, la estrategia de defensa podría implicar acciones ofensivas; en un compromiso defensivo, el propósito del elemento de retención sería absorber el empuje del enemigo, mientras que el elemento de ataque se dirigiría hacia el enemigo, antes de que pueda explotar cualquier avance.…”