Attack, attack, attack, offense, offense, offense, these are the things that strategists try to achieve. When presented with an option of defending and attacking, most people decide to attack without the slightest bit reflection. Since the attacking party has the advantage (in theory), attack then is the best policy at all times. Isn’t it?

During the War Between the States, Thomas Stonewall Jackson, during the second battle of Manassas, did something that isn’t common: he chose a defensive position on purpose. Because rifles during the war had a longer range than rifles had ever before that time, men in trenches or behind barricades etc. could pick off attacking soldiers, before they could ever reach the position they were trying to assault. Frontal and direct assaults didn’t usually work for that reason (five our of every six frontal attacks failing) but many commanders didn’t understand that, and that would account for the numerous deaths. Jackson did understand it, and during the second battle of Manassas he showed that he did. He took up a defensive position; the enemy attacked him, and was defeated.

From my own experience with wars waged with little plastic men, and even chess, when you’re outnumbered, outgunned, or don’t have enough leverage to force a win by an attack, you don’t even try to attack, you defend. ‘What’s the point’ you might ask? ‘After all, it’s the offense that scores points!’ If you can gain a superior weapon, or tactical system, or even something that’s just different and unexpected, you can lure the enemy into attacking you, be defeated by your forces that are standing on the defensive, and then you in your turn your defense into offense, and attack an enemy that has been weakened by their fruitless assaults.

In the magnificent seven, (one of my favorite movies), the question was asked how seven gun men, and a little village could keep the villain Calaveras away. The answer was to “Lower the odds”. Now what the gunfighter had in mind was a surprise attack, the opposite of what we are talking about, but the basic reasoning is the same: the reason why you defend first, and then attack, is to simply “lower the odds” for when you attack.

Sometimes it’s best to make an ambush, or to strike first, but at other times it is best to defend. What defines what you should do is simply what you can do. If you do not have the manpower to drive back the enemies assault, then you should not defend, unless you have a superior weapon of some kind.

A few days ago I fought a ‘war’ on this very principal of defend and then attack, I was outnumbered and outgunned by the enemy (commanded by a friend of mine), I decided that he held to strong a position, and too many guns to attack him. So I laid out bait, a few jeeps and tanks and men, sort of out of the way, but ripe for attack. What were unseen were the snipers, armed with rocket launchers that were hidden in a mountain over looking the place. He took the bait, sent in an air raid to destroy my jeeps, munitions, and whatever else I put there, and was shot down by my snipers. He made a few similar attacks, all of them fruitless and self-destructive, until I had the greater manpower and weapons, and had shot down every plane in his air force. Now that the defending was done, and the odds had been lowered, it was time for me to win the game. I launched an assault against him, in it I smashed his navy, took the high ground, and burned his fortress, and forced him to surrender.

Defending and then attacking is a very effective method, but do not forget that while defending, you must have a reason to believe that you will defend successfully. You must gain a superior tactical system, such as fighting behind trenches and barricades, or ambush, or even better, gain a superior weapon! And remember what defines superior might simply mean to be different in a way that’s unexpected. Defend, lower the odds, then attack, and crush the enemy!