The Indirect Approach: B.H. Liddell Hart and Strategic Dislocation

The Lesson of Psychological Dislocation

Military theorist B.H. Liddell Hart argued that the most effective way to win is through the 'indirect approach.' The core lesson is that a direct attack against a settled opponent in a consolidated position almost always leads to excessive losses and stalemate. True strategy aims to dislocate the enemy—mentally and physically—before the actual fighting begins, making the subsequent victory easy or even unnecessary.

Historical Example: The Fall of France, 1940

The German invasion of France in 1940 is a classic example of the indirect approach at a strategic level. The French expected a direct repeat of the Schlieffen Plan from WWI, focusing their defenses on the Belgian border and the Maginot Line. They placed their most powerful forces in the north, ready for a head-on collision.

Instead, the German High Command (following the Manstein Plan) launched their main effort through the Ardennes Forest—a region the French considered 'impenetrable' to tanks. By bypassing the main defensive works and striking at the hinge of the Allied lines, the Germans achieved strategic dislocation. The French command was mentally paralyzed; their entire defensive concept was rendered obsolete in a matter of days. The German forces did not seek to destroy the French army in a series of frontal battles but rather to sever their communications and command structure, leading to a rapid collapse of the state’s will to fight.

Modern Application

Strategic dislocation is the primary objective of modern 'Information Warfare' and 'Hybrid Warfare.' Rather than engaging in a direct kinetic conflict, an adversary might use cyberattacks, disinformation, and economic pressure to undermine a nation's social cohesion and trust in its institutions. By the time a 'hot' war starts, the target is already strategically dislocated and unable to mount a coherent defense. In business, this is equivalent to 'disruptive innovation.' A startup doesn’t compete with a giant by doing the same thing better; it uses an indirect approach—a new business model or technology—that makes the giant’s existing infrastructure a liability rather than an asset. Strategic success comes from finding the line of least expectation.

Conclusion

The indirect approach is about the economy of force. It teaches us that the mind of the enemy commander is the true objective. By avoiding the obvious and attacking the unexpected, one can achieve outsized results with minimal risk.