Combat Operations Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Combat Operations - Essay ExampleThis theory evolved as far back as industrial age. Like machinelike sciences, Clausewitzs Center of sedateness is not a point of strength but a focal point where physical forces act or come together. thereof it is not a capability based warf ar but an load based warfare. As in physics, any force that acts on the center of gloom of an object has a profound effect on the object as a whole. Hence, if similar force is applied militarily on the center of somberness of a nation, it will have a far more dramatic effect not only on military of the adversary but too the nation as such. Since Clausewitzs war is nothing else but a direct extension of national policy, it will also bring about the desired results ofttimes faster than any other means. Further, Clausewitz did not classify CoGs as Strategic, Operational or Tactical. The whole system functioned as one united entity, and any effect was felt on the total system rather than on individual units.On the other hand, Liddell Hart during World War I suggested a system that was designed to upset the opponents morale and confuse his thinking process well before even bringing him on the battlefield, or forcing a defeat without concussion of arms.He thus advocateIn most campaigns the dislocation of the enemys psychological and physical balance has been the vital prelude to a successful attempt at his overthrow. (Liddell Hart, 1929)He thus advocated attack along a line of lesser expectations like base, communication network, road or rail links thereby mystify, subvert and surprise the enemy. Guerilla warfare employed by many rulers across the world used this strategy very successfully when fighting against much bigger and unassailableer adversaries.The effect to be sought is the dislocation of the opponents mind and dispositions - such an effect is the true gauge of an indirect approach.-Sir Basil H. Liddel-Hart (Strategy, 1954) The Comparison As both the theories are based on ent irely different concepts, it is a bit difficult to compare them across the table and satisfactorily come out with a justifiable and clear victor. The strategy to be chosen in this respect can be arrived at only after all the mitigating circumstances have been evaluated and a consensus arrived at after a deliberate appreciation of the situation. However, in most cases of modern warfare, it can be stated that countries prefer to opt for Center of Gravity option due to one simple reason, that most modern wars have been initiated by the militarily stronger nations against a perpetually irksome adversary, and these wars had clear and well-stated objectives, whether it was Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) in 1971, Falklands in 1982, or Iraq during the two Gulf wars. The attackers in these situations had a clear military superiority, well-established reasons for going into war and followed specific strategies. Further, the attacking power was so strong in most cases that the outcome of the war was never in doubt. The only aspect under doubt was the time factor and the military losses on both sides. Hence, in such cases, it can be