What is the military thinking through which a military doctrine is created at the strategic level and which is the role that it plays as a military intellectual background for achieving the mission of the armed forces in the context of the national grand strategy. How the existence of a doctrine is scaled to the different levels, from the strategic to the tactical. Can we establish an effective doctrine that responds effectively in the hybrid dimension?
A military doctrine is the intellectual background for military forces to initiate, conduct, and complete military operations. It varies by state and between different branches of the armed forces. It depends on the national security strategy, political priorities and economic parameters mainly.
A military doctrine can cover, depending on the level, the overall national military strategy, as well as the strategy and tactics of the individual branches of the armed forces and defense forces/reserves. Furthermore, a military doctrine may provide instructions for a specific type of operations such as island defense, amphibious operations, etc.
For an in-depth study of military doctrines, we need to move, for example, due to a random approach to the army which defines its own doctrine as a set of fundamental principles, which govern the actions of military/land forces or their units, in support of national strategic objectives.
It is the point of reference for the development of new ideas and concepts to meet future demands and challenges. It provides authority, but requires judgment in its application. Each doctrine constitutes the top text of the operational function, which is taken up on a case-by-case basis. Usually, the hierarchy of army doctrines include the “Fundamental”, the “Basic” and “Specialized” Doctrines.
The purpose of an army doctrine is to define a framework of concepts, principles and directions for “HOW” military power must be planned, developed and used effectively, in order through the realization of military/land (operational - tactical) projects and missions to achieve the intended objectives. They, in turn, contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the national defense policy, the national military/joined strategy and those determined by the targeting of the armed forces, in support of the national interests.
An army doctrine seeks to determine the operational requirements and capabilities that the army must develop, in the context of the implementation of the national defense operational objectives, which will allow it to carry out the main operational projects assigned to it, operating either in a sectoral or cross-sectoral context.
In addition, the development of an effective strategic framework of using the forces and military power of the army, to achieve the military strategic level objectives. For example, an island defense doctrine (specialized), is taught probably at the army war college during operational planning to army officers and includes principles and methodology of an operation of special conditions beyond those considered as classic, namely, offensive or defensive operations which are given more emphasis.
In this way, it is emphasized that military doctrines are the foundations on which military personnel are based, while at the same time they must always be open minded and creative. After all, any strategy that is reflected in a doctrine is, in other words, a bridge that leads to the future.
Going further, a holistic analysis of the operational environment, its components, actors and relationships between them is the beginning of the operational design process. It includes an analysis of all factors for an accurate description of a threat or a security challenge and, a prediction of interest and intentions of other actors. A clear and understandable description of the problem is also vital.
Describing and understanding the problem helps to identify the necessary change in the existing environment. An ill-defined problem at the strategic level makes it difficult to find a solution. We need to be sure we are trying to solve the “right” problem. There is a tendency to fight the “wrong” problem.
What are the most likely threats and activities that our country will face? It is important not to see your country as you wish, but as an enemy sees it. Defining the problem should include our threats, vulnerabilities and gaps. In this context, the next step should be the development of a strategy through combining and assessing ends-ways and means, whereas this planning leads to an actual product, a doctrine.
Moving further to the hybrid dimension and in connection with our article at Proorasis about the hybrid age book review dated on 17 May 2023, we can notice that the possession of hard power is the one thing, the use of soft power is another that adds strength to us, but also the combination of those two to achieve desired effects. Last but not least, we should add to the available choices sophisticated smart power tactics, but also sharp power methods should exist to any playbook in today’s reality.
Leveraging modern operating models, digital tools and modern technology are just few examples. Exploiting technology and the creative tools it offers us, is a one-way street. Digital networks and the digital world are possible battlefields and potentially capable of determining a decisive outcome.
Resilience, self-sufficiency and autonomy of the state apparatus are vital factors in managing hybrid threats and crises. A realistic adoption of a culture of change in any society is required. Developing resilience, both at a societal and individual level is important. Additionally, resilience is built through preparedness and is achieved through continuous preparation to mitigate and adapt to potential risks before a crisis occurs.
Given that, maintaining a balance is essential and as the available resources are limited, we should have in mind that no holistic framework can be made ‘absolutely resilient’. Complacency and self-congratulation are the opposite of resilience.
Additionally, the need to address emerging hybrid threats is recognized precisely to prevent a war or a conflict, to deprive hostile actors of achieving their strategy and objectives.
Also, building a reliable deterrence strategy is of paramount importance. The strong political will, should be the basis for its foundation, which requires national unity. In this way, appropriate deterrence strategies and the appropriate combination of general, adaptive and direct deterrence have to be developed and adapted to the dynamic developments of the global distribution of power.
Traditional wars have been largely replaced today by undeclared wars. After all, it can be said that they are between normal diplomacy and below the war line, the so-called “grey zone”. Responding to a hybrid war involves multiple ethical and political dilemmas, while the first line of defense is the resilience of political structures, services and media. The coordination of all the national elements of power is an obligation to effectively deal with these new forms of crises and challenges characterized as hybrid.
In conclusion, military doctrines form the basis of military thinking, which must always be flexible, adaptable, to evolve and respond to new challenges. Particularly, regarding hybrid warfare it is a new approach that has come to challenge our flexibility and our ability to adapt in an emerging crisis.
A proper countering strategy, a satisfactory framework for understanding hybrid warfare, trying to solve the right problem, and the experience that can be gained from examining previous cases is the appropriate solution. The combination of the above can lead us with relative safety or at least better prepared for the uncertain future.