“Employment of this concept of surfaces and gaps, then, gives us many advantages over what could be called slower moving forms of combat, where strengths is thrown against strength. Attacking through gaps, avoiding surfaces, gives us an advantage of economy of force. If we are pitting strength against strength, assaulting enemy strong points, we are consuming our manpower as well as ammunition and supplies as we go along. If we go through the gaps, we are practicing economy of force. We are reaching our objective without using up our men. We are leaving the enemy behind. Because we are moving faster, we have the advantage of rapid exploitation.” ~COL Mike Wyly

The concept of strength verses weakness is an important concept to be calculated on both the friendly and adversarial sides of conflicting situations. How we observe and orient to this concept in the mist of conflict while according with an adversary requires knowledge and the ability to apply this knowledge to strategy, operational art and tactics. This has a great bearing on the decisions and actions we make and take in handling dynamic encounters.

The concept strength and weakness, also known as surfaces and gaps, is the idea of exploiting your adversary’s weaknesses with your strengths. There is a give and take, to conflict, moves and countermoves on both the friendly and adversarial side. This interaction takes place in both defensive and offensive positions which is sometimes forgotten in haste to respond and resolve a situation. Our goal is an honest assessment both implicitly and explicitly (when possible) of strengths and weaknesses and then exploiting those weakness of our adversary using our strengths as the conflict unfolds. This ability to make an assessment on the fly when risk is high and time is scarce is the key to reshaping the adversary or opponent so mistakes are made that opens opportunity(s) allowing us to take a position of advantage.

Sounds rather simple yet in most instances those of us in the protection professions (law enforcement, safety and security, military) usually grasp this idea solely as one of action verses reaction, size and strength, armed verses unarmed and I am stronger and faster than him! We outnumber him! Let’s go get him! We are the good guys, let’s go! Get inside! Hurry Up! Move your *ss! Etc.

These are just a few of examples of statements during a response to a crisis that feed the beast of emotional and sometimes reckless responses, over rapid decision making and the strategic and tactical approach. This type of attrition mindset and reaction to handling crisis situations is more strength verses strength than employing strengths against an adversary’s weakness.

What role does strength or weakness play in our assessment of the situation and how we respond? Does knowledge of strength and weakness based on the unfolding situation help us in assessing what’s going on? And how does an appropriate assessment of both adversarial and friendly strengths and weaknesses affect our decisions and actions? Do we even use these concepts in assessing ourselves and our adversary’s to gain an advantage?

Being able to make the assessments of where an adversary’s strengths and weakness are in the physical, moral and mental realms such as, physical size, strength, skill, knowledge, mindset, motive, intent, training and experience (street & formal), emotional control, reputation, etc, as well our self- assessment on the fly as to how we match up in these categories are all critical in our orientation, decision making and actions we will take in a given situation.

Although the mental mindset of “we will prevail” is important the intuitive assessment of strengths and weaknesses is as critical to being successful, at winning without further escalation if possible. If voluntary compliance and a peaceful resolution is not possible and the situation is escalating because our adversary has chosen to take the situation to a higher level which requires rapid decisions and force utilization. We can through foreknowledge of strengths and weaknesses in combination with interaction with the adversary, other responders and our environment utilize force options that give us the clear advantage as the situation evolves placing us in a position to win.

When talking strengths and weaknesses we must also consider the environment and who has the strength of better positioning verses the weak points that can be exploited. Take for example responding to a home, classroom or office? Who has the stronger position the person held up inside for whatever evil reason or those responding to resolve the crisis? Do the doors and windows, terrain and micro terrain give the advantage to the friendly or adversarial side of the equation? Who can see who, and who has more concealment and knows the environment better? Who can better utilize the windows and doors to a clearer advantage when it’s known a confrontation may be about to occur? The walls of the home, classroom or office are they a strength that offers you some type of cover or concealment or are they a weakness that offers no real cover and hardly any concealment?

What about during motor vehicle stop? Is the stronger position leaving the subject in the car and an officer walk up and make contact or are we better off using a walk back approach where the subject is told to get out of the vehicle and walk back to the officer? Is it strength tactically to have the subject of a vehicle stop sitting in his vehicle with his hands positioned so they can be seen clearly as you approach or should you have him out on the street on even ground with you? What’s the position of strength and does it ever change based on the circumstances?

Does your patrol car offer enough cover or is there a better position you could take if you come under hostile attack? What about where the stop takes place is it the strongest position that offers you the advantage or has your adversary intentionally stopped and set up at an advantageous position for him?

I know that these things we are discussing here seam basic and elementary when thought about either prior to or after an event or crisis takes place. But are we using these necessary concepts of strength verses weakness during a conflict? I mean are we actually applying them so that we truly gain the advantage. My estimate is the 5% with the proper mindset and attitude are using these skills while most officers are not and this is dangerous ground for us the good guys to be on. It costs us dearly each year in injuries and deaths. I believe preventable injuries and deaths if we just took the time to exercise our observation-orientation- decision and action cycles to the point we apply, what we should know how to apply, in real world encounters.

When you factor in that statistically most cops killed in the line of duty are killed at close distances within 21 feet, 7 yards and more than half of these taking places at even closer ranges. We must consider is distance always strength or are there times when closing distance is more a strength than keeping distance? There are countless incidents where we have been put at an extreme disadvantage by creating distance only to give the adversary more time to react or to be out gunned with more advanced weapons or skills such as a long gun verses a handgun.

Sometimes our own past training and associative barriers (what we believe to be the best option) is a weakness if we fail to understand that reacting based on a canned response. Responding based on yesterday’s battle and “we have always done it this way” is the only thought that goes into handling today’s situation are often how we handle or attempt to handle every similar problem or crisis. This type of a response is just frankly not good enough if safety and professional handling is the goal.

Knowing and being able to apply a vast array of tactics leads to formlessness and the ability to keep hidden your intentions, causing the adversary to be indecisive. The adversary will modify his original anticipations, vary his tactics or view your actions as a preconceived plan; this depends on his evaluation of the unfolding circumstances. This is an obvious strength for the friendly situation as it opens opportunities (weaknesses, gaps) useful in trying to resolve conflict.

We must consider the psychological and physiological factors as well such as fear and emotions, fight or flight response and the ability to stay mentally calm under pressure and think verses react. Do we understand both the strengths and weaknesses of fear? As Gavin Debecker states in his landmark book, The Gift of Fear “Controlled fear makes you fast, strong, impervious to pain and mentally sharp.” Most people, including those in the protection professions do not understand fear and why we have it in us, most think being afraid is a bad thing, a weakness and it is if we allow it to take over our thoughts and emotions and we are frozen and unable to act but if we channel it for what it’s meant for, an early warning indicator of potential danger then the strength of controlled fear helps prepare us for what lies ahead.

Who is more aware and sensitive to the situation? Not sensitive in the sense of sitting, holding hands and singing Kumbaya but in the sense of understanding the full range of forces (mental, moral and physical) that define ones situation and therefore the ability to anticipate the various possibilities and outcomes that could take place. The strength here belongs to the one who possess this ability of a fine tuned awareness and intuitive sensitivity to the tactical situation. He who is more adaptable and agile with the ability to use a variety of tactics in an effort to deceive and reshape the adversaries Boyd Cycle to the point they are incapable of responding effectively and possibly comply.

Strength and weakness also shows itself in the moral realm of conflict in our understanding of the laws, rules and regulations, policies and procedures, these rules of engagement are a strength for us on the friendly side in the aftermath of an event or crisis because they hold us to certain ethical, moral and legal standards. The lack of these same types of rules in our adversary can give them an advantage at the tactical level of an encounter, because they have a lot less to think about in this realm related to these particular rules, this does leave the adversary more options. All the more reason we should understand strength verses weakness so we can calculate these factors into the equation and reduce friction in our decision making.

The concept of strength verses weakness should be learned, understood and utilized in every encounter we find ourselves in. If we do not utilize the concept you can be rest assured your adversary will.

Although deadly assaults on protection professionals takes place up close and personal I contend what gets us hurt or killed happens within the last hundred yards (and further), in the mistakes we make tactically in our approaches and in our failure to assess strengths and weaknesses appropriately. Are our approaches based on even considering the strength verses weakness equation? And if so is there a better way to respond if in fact we do consider the stronger verses weaker position? If so are we doing it?

Yes we must prepare to react in certain spontaneous situations but the unknown adversary lying in wait is a rare occurrence compared to the call outs to disturbances, suspicious persons, and unknown risk situations such as motor vehicle stops and suspicious persons etc.

A protection professional does not postpone making decisions. He thinks a great deal before taking action. He must consider his training, as well as his responsibilities and duties. Understanding the adversary’s strengths and weaknesses and his potential might in a given set of conditions is not enough. It’s incomplete unless one knows how to target one’s forces (mental, moral and physical) against the adversary weakness. The responding personnel must have an appreciation for the concept of weakness and strength. The strength verses weakness concepts go beyond just the physical to include the mental and moral realms of conflict and also include the environment, leadership and knowledge.

This article only touches on the concepts of strength verses weakness and by no means offers all examples, of where they lie and how to exploit them there are too numerous layers of conflict to do so. Conflict is to complex too do merely one thing and results cannot be predicted because strategy and tactics depend upon the strategies of our adversary and behavior changes the environment meaning we must be prepared to adapt based on what’s important now in this, today’s situation…

Plus the goal of my writing on these concepts is to get each of us to think and open our minds to learn, unlearn and relearn based on our experience and the experience of others so that we create and nurture readiness and adaptability. To prepare we must do a lot of this work ourselves if seeking the advantage and winning in complex and chaotic situations is truly our goal.

You can make comments here at the bottom of this newsletter. A discourse on these topics only helps develop our strategies through operational art and tactics which prepare us to not only survive but win in all realms including in the aftermath of dealing with conflict and violence.