Mutual relation, difference and influence of certain terms in the art of war on the development of military doctrine

Abstract

One of the principal notions of the art of war is 'armed struggle'. The redefinition of this key notion would result in defining other related notions. On the other hand, this would result in the shift of the focus of understanding of one theory, and would contribute to the theoretical building of the art of war as a science. This concept would directly determine the contents and scope of derived and other terms and result in positive changes in existing views and principles of the science of defense. Doctrinal practice can only be successful if it is theoretically well-founded and if it does not overlook the facts. The doctrine is not an opinion about something past or present. To necessary extent, it relies on empirical facts and its views are primarily focused on the future that must include hypothetically imagined reality. Without theoretical thinking there is no progress and, therefore, even the slightest advance in this field is socially useful and justified. No theory precedes practice in absolute sense, just as pure practice does not precede any theory. In fact, a certain lower development stage of practice is a condition for building a higher, new theory, which is, in turn, the requirement to promote the old practice to a higher level. (B. Šešić). In order to objectively identify the problem of defining the terms used in doctrinal documents and the art of war as a whole, the paper analyzes a number of definitions of national military authors, as well as those from the West and the East. A law of life is: to change what you have, you must change what you are doing, and to change what you are doing, you have to change what you think.

Keywords

• struggle
• armed struggle
• combat operations
• fight
• battle and operation