What is the most difficult combat maneuver?

First of all, I would like to apologize to STRASAM followers. First, I had to stop writing in this think tank and social media environments because it was one of the conditions of the workplace where I started working. Then I had a major health problem and it took time to recover. For this reason, I was separated from you for quite some time. 

Now, I believe that we are witnessing a very special period of time, as you are closely following, due to the events and wars unfolding around our country, as well as developments on a global scale. In this critical period, I will try to be in front of you with my articles containing technical and tactical evaluations specific to the agenda as much as possible. I will touch on areas with a focus on military philosophy. The following article is the first in a series of articles I have written within this framework.

War is not only a military concept; it is a concept that needs to be analyzed in many layers such as economic, sociological, cultural, geographical, etc. Moreover, the art of warfare, both in its strategic and tactical dimensions, has been in constant change from hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural and industrial civilizations, including today's transition to the information age. In this context, I would like to remind the question in the title: What is the most difficult maneuver of war?

A Different Perspective on Turkish History

As a member of this nation, I think we are familiar with history on many levels, from schools to books. We are a nation that is especially proud and honored by its past achievements. Many hypotheses have been put forward to explain this feature that distinguishes us from many other nations. Our superiority in blacksmithing and the art of creating composite war tools, especially the bow. The fact that we lead a mobile and nomadic life intertwined with the horse. Our ability to shoot arrows by turning back while riding on horseback. Raising our entire nation in a military culture, starting from the family...

Of course, all these assumptions, which everyone is familiar with, have a grain of truth based on historical facts. But let us look at the issue as a whole, not in pieces. The thing about the Turks is that they were able to carry out all difficult military maneuvers in a disciplined manner. Thus, at the beginning of the retreat, it is able to construct the war on a much broader basis, going beyond the assumptions in the minds of the other army.

Our traditional superiority is this: To be able to conduct warfare with a much more open mind than other nations. And to be able to use the means at our disposal in a way that others cannot think of. Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror's landing of ships in the Golden Horn, the invention of the mortar with an oblique trajectory, and the ability to put the enemy on and behind the walls under fire. As in the case of the Shahi cannons, which operated on a screw system and were of gigantic size; and the development of the triangular firing technique, which enabled them to destroy even the largest fortifications.

The Turks were a nation that first won the war in the mind and implemented their plans with discipline. We saw an example of this thanks to Atatürk. "There is no line defense, there is surface defense. That line is the whole homeland." Our ancestor brought a new dimension to the combat staff, which consists of opening the map in the enemy's mind and drawing lines in accordance with the current geographical conditions. The whole world saw this new dimension for the first time with us and quickly adopted it.

The Period of Industrial Age Wars that Turned into a System

The surplus production accumulated in agricultural societies led to the accumulation of wealth, which in turn enabled more professional military formations to exist. To simplify this, the social order produced surplus value and created the military class. The professionalism of the military class also enabled other social classes, such as farmers and artisans, to adapt to the military order more quickly and effectively when necessary.

The industrial age civilization built on this foundation changed not only armies but also the concept of mobilization for war. With mass production and consumption came the rise of mass warfare and mass extermination techniques. Even the rifle in the hands of an infantryman required mining, metalworking, woodworking, producing ammunition, delivering it to the desired location with the right logistics, and constantly feeding the war with fresh weapons and ammunition. When you put this infantry on a vehicle, apart from the industrial ecosystem to design and produce this vehicle, you would need technicians to maintain it and keep it operational, gasoline to keep it constantly supplied and the mining sector to provide it, and new units to equip it with heavy weapons and artillery. Ships, airplanes, railroads, armies big enough to invade countries... Fighting was no longer simple, it required a multidimensional and organized "systemic mobilization".

Everything has a price. In Western society, there was only one country ready to pay this price: The US, which, thanks to the wild west and wild capitalism, was able to mold its social structure accordingly. That is why the US became the world's only superpower and has been able to maintain its military hegemony to this day. Today, there are "special" interpretations of the sustainability of this situation.

Processed by Demir Işıldar

Thanks to the balance of terror provided by nuclear weapons, the Cold War era began. During this period, we saw proxy wars, but countries tried to stay away from regular and equivalent military conflicts. Particularly those countries that were part of a pact and whose involvement was likely to escalate into a world war were accustomed to forgetting the concept of war and what it really meant.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, this process of forgetting deepened. Yes, the US had invented a global war on terror. Yes, all US allies had organized their defenses according to this new type of war. Yes, expectations from the defense and aerospace industry had also changed significantly in line with these new requirements. However, both the Cold War and the global war on terrorism triggered a serious decline and even a loss of capability in the military muscle of the West and the military industrial complexes that fed it.

With the exception of the United States, which maintains its military hegemony across the globe, Turkey, which has been fighting against terrorism supported by its allies for half a century, and some other countries of the world that have been left fighting for one reason or another, the loss of meaningful institutional experience and memory of war is evident. We can say that this is not only the West, but the whole world. Including major potential adversaries like Russia and China.

We see how Israel, a country with a recent history of victories over many Arab countries, advanced in technology and its application, is floundering on a tiny piece of land like Gaza. This country, which has managed to bring its past major wars to a conclusion in as little as 6-7 days, admits that the ongoing operation in Gaza will take months. Ukraine, without the support of the American arsenal, is in a difficult situation. European countries are aware of the lack of capacity and will to support the war in Ukraine, now in its second year. In societies accustomed to luxury and comfort, war seems to have gone beyond the framework of what a culture can accept and tolerate.

I would like to raise the following question: How much more dangerous is Russia, remembering the war in Ukraine, than it was before the war? How much more dangerous can it be when it has a chance to take a breath, to organize its army and military industrial complexes according to the new conditions? The answers to these questions are not encouraging.

Turning the Front of a Modern Army

If we go back to our main topic and focus on the military field, what is the most difficult maneuver militarily in industrial age armies? It is when a huge war machine advancing in a certain direction turns its front in another direction. For example, in the second world war, when the Nazi army group had broken through the Ukraine, reached Azerbaijan, and was approaching its main objective, the Caspian oil, it had to turn its front from east to north and enter the harsh Russian territory with its less rewarding winters. From a historian's point of view, we can see this change in maneuver as one of Hitler's whims. From a soldier's point of view, however, we realize that the tactical, strategic and logistical challenges of this event were more difficult than the battle itself, and that it was the beginning of a losing battle.

Note: In a possible Turkish-Greek war, the predicament of the Turkish army, which would have to turn its front from west to south after reaching Thessaloniki, can also be considered in this context as a mental/potential example.

Another issue that will challenge not only the army but also the entire nation is "opening more than one front at the same time" and having to fight on them. In every period of the history of warfare, fighting on multiple fronts has been challenging for every nation. But in the industrial age and beyond, this situation has become much more corrosive and even destructive. Gone are the days of the American army, which, with fresh strength and a brand new industrial approach, triumphed on both the Pacific and Atlantic fronts. Now no army, including the US, can afford to split its combat effort. That is why the United States, in order to protect Israel from opening another front, is going down to the region itself and saying, "I am here. While focusing its efforts on the Middle East, in the Far East, which is its main target, it is putting countries like Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, etc., which are not "iron-clad" like Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, in China's crosshairs as proxy fighters. It threatens China with creating a new Ukraine.

While all this is happening in front of our eyes, we must realize this. 

There is only one country whose society is ready to accept a multi-front war at home and abroad, whose military power is strong and whose military industrial complex is on its way to completion: Turkey. When it comes to this country, it is necessary to foresee and think about things that even the devil has not taken into account. Because in a place where three continents meet, there is no other power that holds the key to all the victories on three continents, that can guarantee sustainable security, whether in war or peace.

The genie is out of the bottle. Turkey is now in a special transition period

When we talk about the civilization of the information age, let us think about the essential qualities of information. It has no volume, it can move super fast, it determines its own owners, and it is much more decisive than in past eras. We are also talking about something that can take many forms, that can be transformed into different forms and benefits in people's minds, that can grasp all the elements of a nation's national power. Therefore, as Turks, we need to remember all the things that won and lost us wars.

At the beginning of our article, we stated our difference in the following sentences. "To be able to realize the fiction of war with a much more open mind than other nations. To be able to use the means at our disposal in a way that others cannot think of." 

This period, in which we are experiencing the transition to the information age, has a much higher potential to utilize this characteristic than any other period in history. But in order to do this, there is one thing we need to accomplish as human beings: Thinking. To use our minds. To learn from the past. Combining knowledge and wisdom and using them asymmetrically. To envision the future before it happens. These requirements are really difficult and require a great deal of effort in our age, where mental laziness has become as widespread as possible.

Special Note to the Reader:

There is an area that makes every person happy, where their natural talents lie. What made me happy was reading and learning. And all that I learned was to comprehend in depth, in a cause-and-effect relationship. For this reason, technology, which has left its mark on our age, has always been within my field of knowledge and interest. On the other hand, as a Turk and an individual whose ancestors were all professional soldiers, I can say that I am a student of the art of war. I believe that this feature, combined with technology, has given me a different perspective.

From my childhood to the present day, I have never felt the need to count sheep to sleep. I have developed the habit of making war simulations and testing them in my own imaginary world. My interest in technology has added to this habit; many tactics, techniques, tools and measures against tools that do not exist. Trial and error, perseverance, and the ability to criticize one's own creations as harshly as the enemy have become my intellectual nature. I have made it a habit to spend at least 3-4 hours a day in this intellectual eternity. It has been 45 years since I adopted this habit, which is 3.75 years if we say 2 hours a day. This means that I have spent a minimum of 32,850 hours in total. This is enough to make a person an expert in something.

I rarely shared the fruits of this effort, because wherever you could share, the enemy had the means to listen. Therefore, even in the projects I shared, I always added deceptive elements. I adopted the principle of "I tell you what I tell you, you understand what I tell you", hiding the true nature of my thoughts behind other things. I will no longer do this, or at least I will try to minimize this habit. Therefore, I recommend you to follow my STRASAM articles from now on. Because my new articles will scratch your mind even more. You can be sure of that.