The Official Home Page of the United States Army

Link not relevant had to use this form because the Question form was too brief....
So back when I was in the Army they had this Section Leader for a Manuever exercise where they put inexperienced Infantry troops in the Section Leaders position for a moment for a specific Manuever to an Objective exercise in order to give them some experience. So when it came my turn, we had four tracks to a section. I knew my opposing force leader was an idiot (I guess it was a mistake of the LT to tell me who it was). So I came up with a plan where one track would be a decoy and stay somewhat visible and make noise to distract and focus the attention of the OPFOR leader while the the other three tracks would use steath, lay of the land as cover and would approach from the opposite direction and initiate a suprise attack. The plan actually worked to my amazement and we got in a few good MILES System kills before the OPFOR could reorient themselves from what they thought was the avenue of attack. After the exercise the LT dressed me down a little for using "troops as a decoy". I still did better than the other guy who had no real plan but to sit and wait at his CP. So here is my question for Officers and NCO's to ponder and then answer. What is the Difference between using troops as a decoy and using troops as a political "tripwire" to trigger further military engagement as an ally of a foreign country. To me it seems to be the same thing. For examples: Small numbers of troops planned for Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia seem to be not enough to really hold back the opposing force and almost are in a "hopeless defense" type of position. Kind of the same position as the former Berlin Brigade in West Berlin. So isn't using troops as a decoy the same as using them as a "tripwire" to trigger a larger military engagement? Just curious on the responses.