Content area
Full text
The concept of manoeuvre, now a central aspect of British Defence Doctrine, has attracted and continues to attract much controversy. In this article Major General Kiszely analyses the reasons for this, examining what exactly is meant by the term manoeuvre, and explaining why the concept is not well understood. He discusses the relationship between manoeuvre and attrition, traces the origins of the terms `manoeuvre warfare' and `the manoeuvrist approach', and gives an account of the debateparticularly lively in the USwhich has surrounded the subject. Major General Kiszely then turns to assess the validity of the manoeuvrist approach across the whole spectrum of military operations from warfighting to peacekeeping and, lastly, asks whether such an approach is universally applicable.
If the influences of Liddell Hart, Fuller and Sun Tzu can clearly be seen in some of today's approaches to warfare-in particular, what is termed `manoeuvre warfare' and `the manoeuvrist approach'-the purpose of this brief survey is not so much to assess the degree of that influence, as to examine the meaning of 'manoeuvre'. Here we shall examine what precisely the word means in this context, how these terms have come into the military lexicon, and their status in British military doctrine, before assessing their validity, applicability and limitations. But first some definitions, because I contend that the debate, sometimes heated, which has surrounded these concepts has been due largely to a failure by those concerned to define-not just describe and explain, but define-their terms.1
Finding a definition
The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives the word 'manoeuvre' a number of meanings. As a noun, it is `planning and controlled movement, (in plural) large scale exercise of troops, warships, etc.; deceptive or elusive movement; skilful plan'. As a verb, it is to `perform, cause (troops, etc.) to perform manoeuvres; employ artifice; force, drive, manipulate (person, thing, into, out, away, etc.) by scheming or adroitness'. But there is no definition of manoeuvre as an adjective, and no such word as 'manoeuvrist'. In effect, therefore, we have two types of manoeuvre: first, the purely physical one of movement; secondly, the deceptive, elusive, scheming adroitness which causes someone to be forced, driven or manipulated out of something.
The British military's definition of the word sits somewhere between the two: `the employment...