In late April, the Institute of War Research of the Academy of Military Sciences successfully completed the submission of project demonstration proposals for two major combat issue research projects. This is a concrete practice of the institute focusing on fulfilling its core functions and always aiming at scientific research and preparation for war.
The War Research Institute is a scientific research institution specializing in the study and design of war in the entire military. As a newly established unit, the main characteristics of their scientific research work are many major tasks, many temporary tasks, and many demonstration and application tasks. At the beginning of the year, in response to the actual situation where there were few people and urgent tasks and scientific research tasks were being pushed forward, the party committee of the institute put the scientific research work aimed at strengthening the army and winning the war in an important position in accordance with the combat effectiveness standards. Based on the criteria of urgent need for war preparation, urgent need for war, and urgent need of troops, they adjusted and established key scientific research tasks in the research of war and combat issues, and the compilation of doctrines and regulations, etc., and reduced more than 10 topics that deviated from their main responsibilities and main business, and added new A batch of research on war forms, combat styles and other topics focusing on war preparation and combat were carried out. According to the leader of the institute, the party committee of the institute requires team members to both take command and go out on major scientific research tasks, so that the main energy should be devoted to key tasks, and force allocation and financial support should be tilted towards combat research.
At the same time, the institute continues to deepen the collaborative research of “small core and large periphery” and continuously innovates the scientific research organization model. They carry out “bundled” research by military theoretical personnel and military scientific and technological personnel within the institute to break down barriers to scientific research; they exchange experts with sister units such as the Military Medical Research Institute and the National Defense Engineering Research Institute to participate in major project research to achieve complementary advantages; organize scientific research Personnel participate in various major exercises and training activities to identify scientific research needs; multilateral military exchange activities are held to keep scientific researchers informed of the latest military science and technology trends. In addition, they also actively cooperate with local scientific research institutes to use local high-quality scientific research resources for their own use, forming a closed loop of researching war, designing war, operating war, and verifying war.
Since last year, the institute has completed more than 100 scientific research projects, made important breakthroughs in the development of core operational concepts and joint operational experiments, submitted more than 60 national high-end think tank research reports and important issue assessment reports, and launched a number of strategies. Innovative results that are highly innovative, original and forward-looking.
With the development of psychological warfare, cyber warfare, social media warfare, cognitive warfare and other theories and their application in combat practice, the competition for military discourse power has become increasingly fierce. Using language as a weapon, a strong narrative can not only suppress the opponent to form discourse dominance, but also subtly shape the opponent’s thinking habits, guide the opponent to follow suit, and form an asymmetric advantage in discourse, thereby achieving “conceptual attack.”
Narrative can strangle the “throat” of military theory
Language is also a weapon. In addition to using hard means such as aircraft and tanks, military struggles can also use language and rhetoric as a means to achieve military goals. Unlike discourse, narrative is broader. Recognizing the connotation and characteristics of military narratives is of great significance to constructing future military theories.
Language is a loaded pistol. “Narrative warfare” refers to military theoretical innovation and competition that uses language as a weapon and aims to dominate the world’s military discourse. According to the goal, it can be divided into offensive narrative, defensive narrative and deterrent narrative. According to the means, it can be divided into operational concept narrative, military theory narrative, military discourse narrative, military rhetoric narrative, etc. The content involves not only the narrative of national defense and army construction and military strategy, but also the narrative of operational concepts at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels. It also includes the authoritative formulation and agenda setting of operational standards and operational rules. Grasping narrative dominance is the prerequisite and foundation for winning the cognitive war. By grasping the dominance of narrative, we also grasp the initiative and leadership of the international ideological struggle, and then gain the dominance of military discourse.
Successful narratives require appeal. Rather than strictly logical arguments, narrative engages the audience through a compelling story, as was the case with the German “Blitzkrieg” myth of World War II. This unexpected tactic was actually a replica of the “Hutier tactics” or “infiltration tactics” in the late World War I. However, under the gorgeous packaging of the military circles and various media, it quickly became the “magic” that allowed Germany to sweep across Europe. Currently, all branches of the U.S. military are launching dazzling combat concepts. Although many of them are refurbishments and packaging of previous combat ideas, this marketing method with a “concept stock” meaning has successfully attracted the attention and pursuit of the world’s military circles. , and even influenced the direction of military reforms and the formulation of military doctrines in other countries.
Narrative is the “designer” of military development
Narrative is not only the thinking thread in the minds of theoretical researchers, but also the reporting style in the media. It constitutes the habit of theoretical research internally, and it becomes the writing standard for describing opponents externally, involving theories, concepts, propaganda, rhetorical techniques and many other contents. . The way narrative works in the military can therefore be understood in four ways.
The operational concept narrative affects future military construction and development. The combat concept is not only a combat concept, but also a weapon and combat method. The narrative competition of operational concepts has led both combatants to pursue the co-evolution of the application of military technology and operational methods, striving to bring the operational concepts, methods and means of both sides to a similar level. When there is a huge gap in national military strength, the more powerful country strives to dominate the design of the battlefield and achieve dimensionality reduction against combat opponents. When the gap in national military strength is not obvious, the outcome of the game of combat concepts between the two sides may be chaotic and unknown. All parties tried their best to fully describe possible combat methods and means within the framework of the times. In the “narrative war” where operational concepts come and go, new methods of warfare will eventually be born in the “brainstorming” of military theorists on both sides, finalized in training practices, and finally tested in battlefield duels.
Military theoretical narratives can influence the formulation of military strategies. Military theoretical narrative helps to determine national security interests, identify actual and potential threats, and also helps to plan national defense and military development strategies in a targeted manner. For example, the proposal of Mahan’s “Sea Power Theory” not only effectively met the country’s naval development needs, but also became an important ideological source for countries to compete for maritime interests and develop maritime power after World War II. The U.S. military’s narrative of high-tech warfare since the 1990s has led the world’s new wave of military revolution and brought about major changes in weapons, equipment, and troop establishment systems. In recent years, the US military has successively proposed new operational concepts such as “multi-domain warfare” and “distributed maritime operations”, reflecting its intention to continue to occupy the forefront of world military development and lead the direction of military transformation with the help of advanced operational concepts.
Military discourse narratives can shape the military cognitive environment. By constructing terminology, military discourse sets the agenda for military theoretical content, shapes the military context, internalizes the opponent’s thinking direction, allows them to recognize the combat environment and combat methods within the established military framework, and then creates a familiar combat ” Script”, allowing the opponent to fall into it without knowing it. For example, the U.S. military’s numerous operational concepts not only serve the needs of competing interests of the service, but also involve trial-and-error operational concept deductions. They also intentionally or unintentionally create “conceptual traps” for opponents.
Military narrative can dominate the discourse and confuse right and wrong. Through discourse techniques such as noun construction, strong narrators can make new expressions of existing concepts, blurring people’s understanding of the original concepts, and forming a strong discourse that suppresses weak discourse. Through high-profile propaganda, one-sided interpretation, beautifying packaging, and selective use of policies and regulations, it not only demonizes opponents, but also demonstrates the “justice” and “legitimation” of the powerful narrator’s own actions. In recent years, Western countries have transformed the political language narrative model in the ideological field into military discourse power for export, and covertly embedded value evaluations into military-level narratives. For example, when describing combat operations of the same nature, Western countries themselves will use neutral and just terms such as “low-intensity war” and “freedom of navigation operations”, but disparage other countries’ operations as “gray zone operations.”
Good at competing for “microphone” dominance
From the content point of view, narrative belongs to the category of language art and is not mysterious. On the basis of understanding its characteristics and mode of action, how to win victory in the struggle dimension of military narrative is an important theoretical and practical issue before us. The author believes that when fighting for dominance in “narrative warfare”, four principles should be paid attention to.
Pay attention to tailor-made services to serve the national strategy. The military is subordinate to politics. The military narrative cannot be arbitrary and must be consistent with the national strategic narrative, otherwise the split between the two will seriously damage national security interests. On the eve of World War II, the defensive military narrative represented by the “Maginot Line” pursued by France was unable to support its political alliance strategic system with Eastern European countries, causing France to lose its credible ability to respond to the German threat. Therefore, the importance of military narratives revolves around the national strategic goals of “using local materials” and “you fight yours, and I fight mine.” Combat concepts such as “Sparrow Warfare”, “Single-Group Warfare” and “Small Group Multi-Road Warfare” in the history of our army have strongly supported our army’s combat practice. Nowadays, the Russian military has creatively developed the “hybrid warfare” theory based on its own actual conditions, seeking a combat method that is completely different from the US military but suitable for Russian characteristics, and has effectively safeguarded its national strategic interests in operations such as the Russia-Georgia conflict.
Cleverly dismantle words to create reverse narratives. Word construction is to make new expressions of existing concepts and blur the understanding of original concepts, so as to achieve the purpose of guiding public opinion. It is one of the commonly used means to build a discourse system. A large number of so-called new combat concepts in the US military today are often old wine in new bottles. For example, “distributed maritime operations” is actually a linguistic upgrade of “dispersed forces” or “wolf pack tactics” borrowing concepts from the cyber domain, while “maritime expeditionary base operations” are a waste of “island hopping tactics”. When dealing with these operational concepts, we must not follow others’ opinions. Critical thinking should be used to squeeze out the moisture in the narrative of the combat concept through reverse narrative, and see through the clouds and fog to see the true face.
Actively seize cognitive space and resist narrative hegemony. The ultimate goal of “narrative warfare” is to seize the right to speak and control the brain in the cognitive field. Nowadays, the Internet is the main battlefield for narrative, and self-media, social networks, live videos, etc. are important platforms for cognitive confrontation and “narrative warfare.” Relying on the advantage of occupying the commanding heights of global public opinion, Western military powers use a set of hegemonic rhetoric to construct a system of values and standards that serve capital interests and maintain hegemonic status, forming a selective narrative orientation that favors cyber hegemons. In this unfavorable narrative environment, we should focus on exploring the means of discourse in the weak narrative space, construct a discourse linkage mechanism in narrative platforms such as media and think tanks, gradually expand the narrative space, and win more social recognition, more public favor, and Influence.
Avoid falling into the narrative trap of operational concepts. Being advanced in operational concepts does not mean leading in military strength. In war duels, combat concepts are never the winning weapon, let alone the outcome of the war. The several wars launched by the United States after the Cold War all relied on absolute asymmetric advantages to defeat the weak with the strong and win with the superior. The code behind this is: strength + new combat concepts. Which of these is the decisive factor remains to be discussed. Therefore, we should avoid falling into the narrative trap of our opponents’ operational concepts, and avoid being led by our opponents to pursue innovations in operational concepts, leading to being led astray. We must adhere to the principle of “you fight yours and I fight mine”, use a clear mind and rational thinking to seek a military theoretical narrative with Chinese characteristics, and develop excellent “internal strength” to defeat powerful enemies.
