LAW OF
VICTORY?[1]
What we ought to be
looking at is whether there is a recipe for success in both war and peace that
can be brought to light.
Q:
What is the secret of success in
combat, in an operation?
How is victory achieved?
Is there still that “magic key” which
opens the “magic box of victory”?
Maybe everything is decided by the talent
of the military leader?
Is the answer contained in the formula
“the fittest wins”?
Is there a law of victory and if there is,
what is it?[2]
Basic
formulation of a Law of Victory: The
course and outcome of war is determined by the political goals and correlation
of the aggregate forces of the warring sides, as well as by the ability of the
latter to take into account the effects of the laws of war and warfare.[1]
Analysis: law of victory incorporates a triad: formulation of a goal; creation of a
corresponding troop grouping; and expert use of the available forces.
Law of victory incorporates an objective
and subjective side
Objective: the goal and the correlation of forces is a
permanent constituent of victory, reflecting the need to prepare in advance
Subjective: the essence of the law of victory (in a
narrow sense). As a variable constituent
of victory, it reflects that cognized freedom of action which is retained by
military leaders ( commanders) of the opposing sides in the context of an
abjective limitation of forces already in the course of war (operation or
combat). Freedom is realized through
the ability and skill to make an
efficient use of their forces and fires, as well as other objective factors
(time, space, terrain features, climactic and weather conditions, and so forth)
which assume the form of “degrees of freedom” so that their effects favorable
for the troops are strengthened and the unfavorable minimized. This is in fact military art - the art of
using the laws of warfare in the interest of victory.[2]
A
characteristic of the law of victory is its certain logical transcendence as it
incorporates all the laws of war and warfare.
“ This means that the law of victory is impossible to represent in a
manifest and unequivocal form: It is a
“thing in itself”, as it were. This
means that its cognition is inconceivable without studying the laws of warfare.[3]
The
problem is not to prove the dependence of the course and outcome of warfare on
the knwoledge and creative use of its objective laws - this is obvious, but to
elicit, in a concrete situation, those laws whose effect objectively contribute
to victory, and, by making and executing corresponding decisions, use them
actively - by engaging in “creative work” in the battlefield.
