Infinity Journal: The Foundation of Strategic Thinking
If you look at the biographies of the men who were “present at the creation” or made the transition from World War to Cold War – Stimson, Acheson, Harriman, Marshall, Bohlen, Kennan, McCloy, Forrestal, Nitze, Eisenhower, Dulles, Lovett – they had overlaps of background in international business, diplomacy, banking, law and war. While this did not mean policy harmony – for example Acheson, Kennan, Bohlen, Harriman and Nitze had disagreements among themselves in regards to the Soviets – they possessed a shared understanding of strategy and the historical context in which they operated.
Today, high level discussions of strategy between the military, policy and political worlds are too often exactly that – communications between different planets rather than a dialogue within one small world.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
J. Scott Shipman:
July 3rd, 2012 at 1:39 am
Hi Zen,
.
Thanks for this posting! Van Riper’s essay is a bright spot on an otherwise uninteresting dialogue about true strategy.
BJ Armstrong:
July 3rd, 2012 at 1:40 am
Hey! I represent that remark.
zen:
July 3rd, 2012 at 1:50 am
LMAO!
seydlitz89:
July 4th, 2012 at 12:17 am
zen-
Great issue of IJ, but then I would say that.
.
Van Riper has taken on the mantel carried earlier by William Odom. That is a distinguished retired US General officer, being at the same time articulately Clausewitzian in terms of strategic approach. Great description of non-linearity and I loved the reference to the Strategic Planning Guidance of 1992.
.
Context!
J. Scott Shipman:
July 4th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Hi BJ,
.
Your essay was very good, too! More Mahan, please!
Madhu:
July 6th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Very nice pieces you’ve highlighted, Zen. Okay, I only read two of them, but, to be honest, that’s all I’m going to get to….
zen:
July 8th, 2012 at 2:20 am
Thanks Doc Madhu – the medical world seems to have you busy these days!