Along with 'why?', 'who?' is the most neglected question in the context of war.
Who fights? Individuals, groups, corporations, states, international organizations...
When talking about traditional warfare, it is usually assumed that the participants in war are static identities, more or less mirroring each other.
The word 'individual' aptly describes the view that we consider identity to be static.
Just as individual is actually a 'dividual' (a person might have different opinions on different topics - or even different opinions on the same topic), other groupings, other abstractions of identity are 'dividual' as well.
War is not an isolated incident - not in any aspect.
On any level of abstraction of identity, within the context of warfare, both external conflicts and internal conflicts are observable.
Pinpointing the identities the conflict originates from as well as the reason for the conflict is essential for 'winning' or 'solving' with elegance; a nudge at the precise point is more efficient than an atomic bomb at an approximate location.
One with an encompassing vision can reduce external conflicts to internal conflicts. (Or the other way around too, which can be useful in other contexts.)
Identities can shift in many directions; the decision making process shifts accordingly and one can find itself fighting the wrong war.
With less sight and less self-balance, when making an action, one can easily shoot oneself in the foot with the resulting reaction.