Political oversight over military organization in the DOTP

[Die Neue Zeit]

Bullets do nothing against armor, RPGs do nothing against jets thus you need a mechanized fighting force possibly with nuclear capabilities depending how the revolutionary war unfolds. I doubt workers militias can be trusted with tactical nukes, and even if the revolutionary army sees this as a line not to cross I doubt workers militias can be trusted with thermobaric warheads, and then there is a huge issue of workers militias working abroad.

I've stated before the need not to turn swords into plowshares by dismantling engineer and other non-commanding specialists (hence opposition to the slogan "abolition of the standing army"), but what hasn't been addressed is political and security supervision over military organization during the DOTP.

Security has been addressed somewhat here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/security-forces-dotpi-t146182/index.html

The subject of political supervision is interesting, because how can one reconcile this with military unionization and elected or demarchically selected commanding officers subject to recall? The term "political commissar" is a stereotype for a very specific kind of political officer, as explained below, that was replaced by a potential reconciliation:


The other type was the political commissars (or "politruks"). This was a type of army officer, originally used to help keep Red Army units loyal during the Civil War, and then reestablished for ensuring the army's loyalty during the Stalin era (in the 1930s). The commissar's principal responsibility was effectively to act as a link between the party and the army, as well as boosting the morale of the men as a counselor and organizing ideological activities and basic political education courses for the troops. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politruk) The USSR permanently retained this type of commissar, and still had thousands of poltical commissars in the 1980s, although the commissar's initial authority to act as an "alternative commander" and give his own separate orders was eliminated in 1942; the political officers were formally renamed and no longer addressed as commissars (the new replacement term was "zampolit" -- an abbreviation standing for "deputy commander for political work"; the umbrella term "politruk" -- an abbreviation simply standing for "political leader" was also used before and after the 1942 changes).

From Stalin's time and onward, the Red Army's political commissars were assigned to their own type of hierarchy (later in the war they were actually given corresponding military ranks, from lieutenant to general). The highest-ranking political commissars were responsible for the political education of entire armies and essentially had a rank equal to that of the Red Army generals -- thus men like Khrushchev and Bulganin ended up with the rank of general, although the operational decisions were made by career army officers like Zhukov, etc. As a matter of course, the highest-ranked of the army's commissars were the high-ranking Party members -- some even members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party.

At the same time, a lot of the lower-level political officers ('commisars') who went off to war in 1941 were guys in their 20s. Naturally, many of them were recent party members. (Even though experienced people with solid party backgrounds were naturally preferable for this type of work, but the only real requirement for the job was being a highly dedicated and loyal communist.)

For instance, the legendary WWII partisan Nikolay Kiselyov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Yakovlevich_Kiselyov) was made a commissar straight out of college, and many of the junior-level commissars were just your regular rank-and-file Communists in good standing.

My great-grandfather, who'd worked as a Marxist political science instructor at a vocational school in eastern Poland / western Belarus for a bit, but hadn't been a Communist party official, volunteered for the Red Army in 1941 and was assigned as a political officer to a tank brigade.

It was a pretty dangerous job on the Eastern Front: Hitler gave the infamous Commissar Order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissar_Order), which stipulated that any commissar who fell into German captivity was to be shot on the spot. The casualties among them in battle were pretty high.

Although sometimes used in other contexts (e.g., an authoritative Soviet writer on drama or literature could be labelled a "cultural commissar" by anti-Communist western sources), the term "commissar" isn't applicable to other areas. There were no "commissars" in workplaces or offices or anywhere else outside the Cabinet positions and the army structure.

The zampolit as an institution should be re-examined further as a potential DOTP instrument in the future.

[Psy]

I've stated before the need not to turn swords into plowshares by dismantling engineer and other non-commanding specialists (hence opposition to the slogan "abolition of the standing army"), but what hasn't been addressed is political and security supervision over military organization during the DOTP.

If the revolution is healthy then the troops would be putting revolutionary pressure on their offices especially if the workers state helps troops establish a labor union and the worker state takes troop grievances through their labor unions seriously.

[Susurrus]

I'm sorry about this noob question, but what does DOTP stand for?

[Jose Gracchus]

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

[Susurrus]

Oh. Derp. I think I've even seen this acronym before, it just didn't click in the context of the topic.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I thought the acronym was a more well-known and commonly used term on this board of all places, even by learners.

[RED DAVE]

I've stated before the need not to turn swords into plowshares by dismantling engineer and other non-commanding specialists (hence opposition to the slogan "abolition of the standing army"), but what hasn't been addressed is political and security supervision over military organization during the DOTP.The so-called "standing army" of the ruling class has to be abolished ASAP. If the revolution is worldwide, there will be no need for such a reactionary institution. If it isn't, then a new revolutionary army has to be built.

You always get it wrong, DNZ, because you do not understand revolutionary democracy, in the workplace or anywhere else.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem is that the "new revolutionary army" is still quite a standing army. It's your sloganeering that hasn't got the thinking straight.

[RED DAVE]

The problem is that the "new revolutionary army" is still quite a standing army. It's your sloganeering that hasn't got the thinking straight.Your concept is clearly based on a model of bourgeois army: a dictatorship with arms. A revolutionary army will be completely different with a democratic structure. You are such a social democrat that you don't even know that you are one.

Tell you what. Why don't you take your slogans and try to organize around them. None of us around here have ever noticed that you have ever been involved in any movement outside the ones in your own mind, and those are usually stalinist or social democratic.

RED DAVE

[sanpal]

A revolutionary army will be completely different with a democratic structure.
RED DAVE

I hardly can imagine army with democratic structure. Every battle-order by commander must be discussed and voted by soldiers? :lol:

[RED DAVE]

I hardly can imagine army with democratic structure. Every battle-order by commander must be discussed and voted by soldiers? :lol:Not every battle-order but all issues of strategy and tactics must be democratically discussed, yes. You can hardly imagine it? Think harder.

RED DAVE

[Jose Gracchus]

Workers' militias were based on election and participative democracy, and the standing army prior to the German and Russian Revolutions had the officer corps basically displaced as authorities by congresses and elected committees of soldiers' delegates.

[RED DAVE]

Volunteer units during the American Civil War elected their own officers and frequently disagreed with them or made suggestions, even in the heat of battle.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

(From the US deficit debate thread in Worker Struggles)


I perceive the DOTP's military model to be a combination of soldier unionization and intra-military democratic rights (like recallability) with the old Armed Forces of the USSR (not the preceding "Workers and Peasants Red Army"), its zampolit apparatus (http://www.revleft.com/vb/political-oversight-over-t157827/index.html), and its supporting defense industry.


Until there is revolutionary democracy from below in the army, the class nature remains the same.

Quit the tired sloganeering.

You say above that "Not every battle-order but all issues of strategy and tactics must be democratically discussed, yes. You can hardly imagine it? Think harder."

Well, I can think about democratic discussions on strategy, but not about tactics. Tactics require extensive knowledge of field manuals, thinking outside the limits of said field manuals, and related expertise taught in military schools.

Not even the grunts of ancient Athens discussed or voted upon this stuff.

Ditto with the grunts of the Paris Commune's more working-class and "patriotic" National Guard, the only possible "saviour" against the more petit-bourgeois (in particular more comprador) Communal Council and its ineptitude by means of some Breakthough Military Coup by the National Guard's Central Committee aiming to be the Committee of Public Safety (http://www.revleft.com/vb/paris-commune-inspirational-t155624/index.html?p=2130478).


Workers' militias were based on election and participative democracy, and the standing army prior to the German and Russian Revolutions had the officer corps basically displaced as authorities by congresses and elected committees of soldiers' delegates.

Again, what "officer corps"? Just the commanding officers, or the engineer and other non-commanding specialists, as well?

Ideally, the Russian Revolutions should have seen the retirement transfer of the czarist officer corps to instructor positions in military schools and such in order to train the next generation of military commanders, especially on how not to conduct wars (like the czarist regime did in WWI).

[RED DAVE]

You say above that "Not every battle-order but all issues of strategy and tactics must be democratically discussed, yes. You can hardly imagine it? Think harder."

Well, I can think about democratic discussions on strategy, but not about tactics. Tactics require extensive knowledge of field manuals, thinking outside the limits of said field manuals, and related expertise taught in military schools. Not even the grunts of ancient Athens discussed or voted upon this stuff.Typical of your bureaucratic cast of thought. And I find it fabulous that your example is the army of ancient Athens. I guess for you all of history is a dumpster for you to go diving in.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I just added the Paris Commune's "anti-bureaucracy" for good measure.

[Jose Gracchus]

Except you yourself just called for the overthrow of the Communal Council or analogues by the Central Committee of the National Guard.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Except you yourself just called for the overthrow of the Communal Council or analogues by the Central Committee of the National Guard.

The rights enjoyed by the National Guard's grunt servicemen were akin to the rights enjoyed by the grunt servicemen in ancient Athens' military. They elected and recalled their commanding officers. Beyond that, however, they and their Central Committee were too embroiled in the revolutionary fervor to discuss alternative tactics to those discussed by the Communal Council.

Oh, damn, you meant the problem with my call in relation to the topic? Chalk up one more strike against the Communal Council, then, for not installing deputies for political work in the new military, or rather paramilitary (the wiki says this is inclusive of militias), let alone less open security operatives. Recall:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/paris-commune-inspirational-t155624/index.html


In the meantime, relations between the Commune and the central committee of the national guard (which had not dissolved itself, as many expected) deteriorated. Neither displayed evidence that they were capable of taking control of the situation.

At one stage in early May a meeting of 15 battalions of the national guard demanded that the Commune abolish the war ministry, leaving the central committee in sole charge of military affairs. If the Commune hesitated the national guard “would act in a revolutionary fashion and take over again their revolution”. In effect, a coup was being threatened.

[RED DAVE]

The rights enjoyed by the National Guard's grunt servicemen were akin to the rights enjoyed by the grunt servicemen in ancient Athens' military. They elected and recalled their commanding officers. Beyond that, however, they and their Central Committee were too embroiled in the revolutionary fervor to discuss alternative tactics to those discussed by the Communal Council.

Oh, damn, you meant the problem with my call in relation to the topic? Chalk up one more strike against the Communal Council, then, for not installing deputies for political work in the new military, or rather paramilitary (the wiki says this is inclusive of militias), let alone less open security operatives. Recall:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/paris-commune-inspirational-t155624/index.htmlThe mind recoils at the obtuseness of all this. We are talking about armies of the revolutionary proletariat, and you are talking about the armies of slave-holding, woman-oppressing Ancient Athens.

Again, history seems for you to be one big dumpster for you to dive in.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

Well, I can think about democratic discussions on strategy, but not about tactics. Tactics require extensive knowledge of field manuals, thinking outside the limits of said field manuals, and related expertise taught in military schools. Not even the grunts of ancient Athens discussed or voted upon this stuff. "field manuals" of an army of the class system? the slave-owner army in Athens?

Military training can be something that is organized for all in the militia. Something you don't consider. that's because the class system is something you seem to regard as eternal.

in the case of the anarcho-syndicalist militia in Spain in 1936, the officers (delegates and chief delegate) were elected, the operations of a column (regiment or division) were run by the war committee, made up of delegates elected from the component units. Assemblies didn't take place in the middle of battles but they did take place. Non-coms or officers from the old army were used as technical advisors. And this was a proletarian army put together in a crisis situation.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"field manuals" of an army of the class system? the slave-owner army in Athens?

Military training can be something that is organized for all in the militia. Something you don't consider. that's because the class system is something you seem to regard as eternal.

This has nothing to do with class at all. The election or random selection, plus recallability, of commanding officers doesn't mean there's no need for commanding officer positions in the first place, hence my reference to the post-WWII Armed Forces of the USSR.


in the case of the anarcho-syndicalist militia in Spain in 1936, the officers (delegates and chief delegate) were elected, the operations of a column (regiment or division) were run by the war committee, made up of delegates elected from the component units. Assemblies didn't take place in the middle of battles but they did take place. Non-coms or officers from the old army were used as technical advisors. And this was a proletarian army put together in a crisis situation.

That the officers were elected by the grunt soldiers (I think, if I'm not misreading you) are fine and dandy with me. Anyways, the operations were still run by a war committee and not by a larger citizens assembly or even a soldiers assembly.

[heirofstalin]

What a bad idea, using tactical nukes in a revolution. You clearly know nothing of warfare and revolution. The construction of Large scale weapons is what allows the government to gain power domestically, so its a barrier to a revolution the nuclear weapons

Also the proletariat doesnt have the means and capablitiy and logistics to launch a wide scale attack on the government, it would a be a bloodbath. The idea of violent aggression on the government is fanatical.

In order to have a hope of launching a violent revolution you need a quick, easily producable weapon that can be used by many people against government forces, such as the musket in the french revolution. In the united states and the west its near impossibble as the government has accumulated tanks, F-16's, predator/hellfire missles, well armed, armoured personell, armoured vehicles, snipers, nightvision goggles.

You can clearly see a repressive government when in times of peace or no hostility ammasses heavy weapons like these, they are going to use it against there own people, you cant fight violently against the u.s government, only protest and passive resistance is a feasible attempt.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What a bad idea, using tactical nukes in a revolution. You clearly know nothing of warfare and revolution. The construction of Large scale weapons is what allows the government to gain power domestically, so its a barrier to a revolution the nuclear weapons

I differentiated between strategic nukes and tactical nukes. Nowhere did I mention the use of tactical nukes in a revolutionary situation. I did mention the need for retaliatory proletarian WMD deterrents (which means strategic weapons).


Also the proletariat doesnt have the means and capablitiy and logistics to launch a wide scale attack on the government, it would a be a bloodbath. The idea of violent aggression on the government is fanatical.

I wasn't talking about nukes in that context, either.

I was talking about nukes either in the context of spreading revolution more easily but still militarily, or in the context of a Workers' Great Patriotic War against foreign imperialist intervention or invasion.

[RED DAVE]

I was talking about nukes either in the context of spreading revolution more easily but still militarily, or in the context of a Workers' Great Patriotic War against foreign imperialist intervention or invasion.Are you advocating the actual use of nukes, not just holding them as a deterrent by actual use, either offensively or defensively?

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Are you advocating the actual use of nukes, not just holding them as a deterrent by actual use, either offensively or defensively?


Many interpret the movement of Soviet missiles into Cuba as a provocative, offensive move. Also, what about enemy aircraft carriers and other isolated (really isolated from civilian bystanders) but big-time mobile military units that are used to attack (revolutionary-)allied targets?

Actually launching a nuke towards some imperialist aggressor's big-time military base (a la Cheyenne Mountain) because of its intervention or invasion in some Workers' Great Patriotic War means that said aggressor didn't take the proletarian WMD deterrent seriously enough, though I prefer aggressive cyberwarfare and/or strategic electromagnetic weapons (knocks out infrastructure, leaves people physically intact).

[Oh, and if such WMD were to be launched from a ballistic submarine, guess who has to man said sub with technical expertise? That's right, not cookie-cutter "militia" crews. If the K-19's trained crew had technical difficulties, guess what would befall a cookie-cutter "militia" crew?]

[RED DAVE]

Are you advocating the actual use of nukes, not just holding them as a deterrent by [sic] actual use, either offensively or defensively?
Many interpret the movement of Soviet missiles into Cuba as a provocative, offensive move. Also, what about enemy aircraft carriers and other isolated (really isolated from civilian bystanders) but big-time mobile military units that are used to attack (revolutionary-)allied targets?(1) Are you defending the presence of Russian missiles in Cuba? (2) Are you saying that the use of nuclear weapons is justified?


Actually launching a nuke towards some imperialist aggressor's big-time military base (a la Cheyenne Mountain) because of its intervention or invasion in some Workers' Great Patriotic War means that said aggressor didn't take the proletarian WMD deterrent seriously enough, though I prefer aggressive cyberwarfare and/or strategic electromagnetic weapons (knocks out infrastructure, leaves people physically intact).You prefer. But in a pinch, a nice, fat nuclear weapon will do just fine.


[Oh, and if such WMD were to be launched from a ballistic submarine, guess who has to man said sub with technical expertise? That's right, not cookie-cutter "militia" crews. If the K-19's trained crew had technical difficulties, guess what would befall a cookie-cutter "militia" crew?]I think that one of the first actions of any revolutionary government will be the scuttling of all nuclear submarines and the dismantling of all nuclear weapons.

For someone who calls themself a revolutionary to consider the use of these weapons is bizarre, to say the least. I'll shut up now because I've already been verbally warned about DNZ this month.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think that one of the first actions of any revolutionary government will be the scuttling of all nuclear submarines and the dismantling of all nuclear weapons.

For someone who calls themself a revolutionary to consider the use of these weapons is bizarre, to say the least. I'll shut up now because I've already been verbally warned about DNZ this month.

You don't need to.

All I'm saying is that turning swords into plowshares is pacifist idealism at best and a con job at worst. There goes retaliatory proletarian deterrence if all nuclear submarines and all nuclear weapons are scrapped.

Look, I don't subscribe to SIOC, but even transnationalism cannot achieve simultaneous revolution everywhere, particular in states with proletarian demographic minorities (hence the need to coexist with Third World Caesarean Socialist movements and regimes there).

[RED DAVE]

I think that one of the first actions of any revolutionary government will be the scuttling of all nuclear submarines and the dismantling of all nuclear weapons.

For someone who calls themself a revolutionary to consider the use of these weapons is bizarre, to say the least. I'll shut up now because I've already been verbally warned about DNZ this month
You don't need to.

All I'm saying is that turning swords into plowshares is pacifist idealism at best and a con job at worst.You're saying. Have you had much experience with the Left and its antiwar activities?


There goes retaliatory proletarian deterrence if all nuclear submarines and all nuclear weapons are scrapped.Retaliatory proletarian deterrence. That means that you consider it okay that the working class would threaten to use nuclear weapons. And, of course, if that threat isn't believable, sooner or later, they'll have to put up or shut up.


Look, I don't subscribe to SIOC, but even transnationalism cannot achieve simultaneous revolution everywhere, particular in states with proletarian demographic minorities (hence the need to coexist with Third World Caesarean Socialist movements and regimes there).I'm just going to chill out and let anyone else who cares to comment on this paragraph.

RED DAVE

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Many interpret the movement of Soviet missiles into Cuba as a provocative, offensive move. Also, what about enemy aircraft carriers and other isolated (really isolated from civilian bystanders) but big-time mobile military units that are used to attack (revolutionary-)allied targets?

Actually launching a nuke towards some imperialist aggressor's big-time military base (a la Cheyenne Mountain) because of its intervention or invasion in some Workers' Great Patriotic War means that said aggressor didn't take the proletarian WMD deterrent seriously enough, though I prefer aggressive cyberwarfare and/or strategic electromagnetic weapons (knocks out infrastructure, leaves people physically intact).

[Oh, and if such WMD were to be launched from a ballistic submarine, guess who has to man said sub with technical expertise? That's right, not cookie-cutter "militia" crews. If the K-19's trained crew had technical difficulties, guess what would befall a cookie-cutter "militia" crew?]

A future working class revolution will not be between states but between classes. It has to be looked at in that way.

The LTTE in Sri Lanka did reach a high level of military ability-they actually had their own navy (with a submarine)and air force, but they were ultimately destroyed because they failed to politicize their struggle, it was purely military. "War is politics by other means" as a famous German military thinker said.

The Sparts seem to advocate the possession and proliferation of nukes (defend Iran's right to use nuclear weapons! Defend the DPRK's right to own nukes!, etc....). At different times in the late 60s, Bertrand Russell, Sartre, and Che advocated or even asked the Soviet Union to nuke the US. Not productive. Its more productive to work to get rid of them.

China is already engaging in "cyberwarfare" against the US, as are several hacker groups. In the case of China this is just another case of "primitive capital accumulation".I wish Anonymous well, their actions are more interesting than torching a Sony warehouse in Tottenham, but ultimately we need class struggle.

[Die Neue Zeit]

A future working class revolution will not be between states but between classes. It has to be looked at in that way.

But states have to be involved precisely because they are the sum of the repressive instruments for the rule of minority classes. OK, so here "workers state" is an oxymoron, but workers polity(s) will require defensive and counter-offensive military capacity.


The LTTE in Sri Lanka did reach a high level of military ability-they actually had their own navy (with a submarine)and air force, but they were ultimately destroyed because they failed to politicize their struggle, it was purely military. "War is politics by other means" as a famous German military thinker said.

In more mainstream language, if the LTTE wasn't a "terrorist" group, it certainly was a paramilitary group (an umbrella term that includes militias but is not just some "militia").

[Note to comrade TIC: I'm in the process of thinking about paramilitary structures right now, having written what I wrote about the Paris Commune's National Guard and Iran's emerging paramilitary dictatorship (http://revleft.com/vb/paramilitary-dictatorshipsi-t157166/index.html).]


The Sparts seem to advocate the possession and proliferation of nukes (defend Iran's right to use nuclear weapons! Defend the DPRK's right to own nukes!, etc....).

I posted similar sentiments in a months-old Politics thread on Iran's nuclear program.


At different times in the late 60s, Bertrand Russell, Sartre, and Che advocated or even asked the Soviet Union to nuke the US. Not productive. Its more productive to work to get rid of them.

They were idiots for asking that. Even my position above isn't asking for such idiocy.


I wish Anonymous well, their actions are more interesting than torching a Sony warehouse in Tottenham, but ultimately we need class struggle.

Fair enough.

[Azula]

Not every battle-order but all issues of strategy and tactics must be democratically discussed, yes. You can hardly imagine it? Think harder.

RED DAVE

Wouldn't the enemy then automatically know what the Red Army is planning?

And what if the plan involves the sacrifice of some regiments or divisions?

[Thirsty Crow]

Wouldn't the enemy then automatically know what the Red Army is planning?

And what if the plan involves the sacrifice of some regiments or divisions?
Then, soldiers should be able to tell their superiors to fuck off and go sacficice themselves (terrorist attacks), if they were to decide so.

[Azula]

Then, soldiers should be able to tell their superiors to fuck off and go sacficice themselves (terrorist attacks), if they were to decide so.

And if you have to sacrifice some regiments in order to save the army, or win the war?

Wouldn't it save more lives?

[Psy]

Then, soldiers should be able to tell their superiors to fuck off and go sacficice themselves (terrorist attacks), if they were to decide so.

In real war is more muddy then that, for if the enemy has broken through and a commander orders a heavy air/artillery strike on the enemy advance in hopes to stall their advance yet such a strike will hit some friendly units. Not calling in heavy support while won't result in heavy friendly casualties could result in worse casualties from the enemy. This is what is meant by a military command making sacrifices

It gets worse when you factor in tactical nukes for example command believes the enemy has launched its tactical nukes so wants to gets all its tactical nukes airborne ASAP so they are not destroyed.

[Azula]

In real war is more muddy then that, for if the enemy has broken through and a commander orders a heavy air/artillery strike on the enemy advance in hopes to stall their advance yet such a strike will hit some friendly units. Not calling in heavy support while won't result in heavy friendly casualties could result in worse casualties from the enemy. This is what is meant by a military command making sacrifices

It gets worse when you factor in tactical nukes for example command believes the enemy has launched its tactical nukes so wants to gets all its tactical nukes airborne ASAP so they are not destroyed.

That is the correct line of thinking.

Warfare involves making hard decisions.

To discuss strategy openly is to invite defeat. Warfare is often more about stealth than brute force, and the enemy must be deceived into making mistakes so it could be obliterated.

[Psy]

That is the correct line of thinking.

Warfare involves making hard decisions.

To discuss strategy openly is to invite defeat. Warfare is often more about stealth than brute force, and the enemy must be deceived into making mistakes so it could be obliterated.

Well if you go by Jomini war theory the focus of a army should be mobility and denying mobility to the enemy with the goal being to out maneuver the enemy.

What this means for a revolutionary army is focusing on the logistical tail of the enemy to diminish the enemy's ability to fight, you don't want to lock horns with the enemy other then prevent the enemy getting at the revolution's army logistical tail. For example a revolutionary army wouldn't have to mess with M1 Abrams they could simply go around them and hit their refueling trucks hard in the effort to totally destroy to deny the Abrams mobility this of course requires the US Army to not know the moments of the revolutionary army as if they know where the revolutionary army is going to strike they will simply focus their strength their.

This means plans have to be given out on a need to know basis to minimize leaks as the enemy will try to infiltrate a revolutionary army with spies.

[Azula]

Well if you go by Jomini war theory the focus of a army should be mobility and denying mobility to the enemy with the goal being to out maneuver the enemy.

What this means for a revolutionary army is focusing on the logistical tail of the enemy to diminish the enemy's ability to fight, you don't want to lock horns with the enemy other then prevent the enemy getting at the revolution's army logistical tail. For example a revolutionary army wouldn't have to mess with M1 Abrams they could simply go around them and hit their refueling trucks hard in the effort to totally destroy to deny the Abrams mobility this of course requires the US Army to not know the moments of the revolutionary army as if they know where the revolutionary army is going to strike they will simply focus their strength their.

This means plans have to be given out on a need to know basis to minimize leaks as the enemy will try to infiltrate a revolutionary army with spies.

One method of rooting up spies is to do like Mao did.

Make everyone write a diary about everything they done every day, and if any incorrect information is spotted, those who have written it should be interrogated.