New Article up at SWJ: Theory, Policy, and Strategy
I teamed up with Adam Elkus in an article running at SWJ/ SWJ Blog this morning. The focus is the intersection of policy and strategy at the level of senior military leader and civilian policymaker.
Theory, Policy, and Strategy: A Conceptual Muddle
It is impossible not to notice that elements of the current acrimonious debates over theory, operations, and practice are proxies for larger political differences over the use of force and its relationship to American national interests. So why are these fundamental policy disagreements being expressed through debate over technical points of military doctrine?
The answer lies in the uncertain, even negligent, muddle that has substituted for a clear paradigm to guide US grand strategy. Because policymakers have failed to define clear US interests, goals, and objectives, attempts have been made to derive grand strategic principles from theoretical debates or operational concerns. While these debates have been intellectually stimulating and often very useful to developing US national security and military doctrine, they cannot sustain US grand strategy. While strategic drift might be inevitable in country where much of strategy is determined by the cleavages of domestic politics, the cost of meandering can be measured in lost opportunities, treasure squandered, and lives lost. Policymakers must make a stand for a strong strategic paradigm to guide US operational methodologies.
Theory, Policy, and Strategy: A Conceptual Muddle (Full PDF Article)
Many thanks to Adam for pushing this project and to Dave Dilegge for publishing it.
onparkstreet:
September 18th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
I saw the article at SWJ. Very nice!
.
I have a couple of tangential points to make about the communication of goals and concepts to civilians and laypersons: they are points I have made, already, in some form at Abu Muqawama.
.
It took several posts and comments by Greyhawk of Mudville Gazette for me to understand that the General McChrystal Strategic Review was responding to the ‘AfPak’ plan laid out in March, based on campaign promises set last fall about ‘properly’ resourcing the ‘good war’ in Afghanistan.
.
I wasn’t the only one confused by that – you had only to read the flurry of press articles from a few weeks ago to see that many reports were calling it a ‘new strategy’ for Afghanistan. Witness Admiral Mullen’s confirmation hearing from a few days ago and the great pains taken by the Admiral and Senators to make that very point – that it is not a new strategy! Amusingly, they seem to stumble a bit around the word strategy when discussing the strategic review: it’s not a new strategy, oh wait, it’s an implementation of strategy, oh wait it is presenting options for implementations for…..! And, the following post at Pia Fidelis makes a similar point about potential miscommunication between civilian and military:
.
http://piafidelis.blogspot.com/2009/09/understanding-civil-military-relations.html
.
I’m not making fun of the Admiral or Senators, or anyone but myself, really. I am saying that the translation of jargon from expert practitioner to lay person leads to confusion, sometimes. Also, it may be in the interest of the politician to allow some of that confusion, so as to seem that he or she is simply following best practices. Well, the generals said I needed such-and-such, my hands are tied, etc. Is any of this making sense?
.
And, yesterday, we had the Kerry chaired hearings on, "three strategies for Afghanistan," featuring Dr. Nagl, Dr. Biddle, and Rory Stewart. Confusion abounds. I suppose these are all examples that prove the point of your article!
.
Back to the "Grand Strategy," today there is an article in the Washington Post about PakAf, as opposed to AfPak. As a member of the Indian diaspora, you can imagine the sorts of grumbling that you mind find on Indian, or Indian American websites about mission creep, Kerry Lugar, fungible monies in Pakistan and the like. It is muddle, and the inclusion of Pakistan, to me, highlights the muddle. Not that we shouldn’t have a policy toward Pakistan, or South Asia, really, given the inherent stabilities, but it all seems so ad-hoc.
.
I really need to do the post I said I would do for chicagoboyz, don’t I? Only, I am an amateur and a dilettante, what do I know? I suppose I could just lay out the questions…..
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091704647.html
.
– Madhu
Lexington Green:
September 18th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
"…I am an amateur and a dilettante…"
.
You are a citizen with a brain in her head who can read.
.
"…what do I know?"
.
Really, what do THEY know? THEY being the people who are supposed to know stuff. The uniformed military guys are smart. The political leadership often less so. Even so, they are all often so close to the subject that they do not ask basic questions. And they all have political stakes in one side or the other of any question.
.
Don’t underestimate yourself. If the emperor looks naked, it may well be that he is.
zen:
September 19th, 2009 at 2:03 am
Agree with Lex. Step forward, not back.
.
Uniformed senior officers are uneasy with being thrust forward into deliberations of national ( as opposed to purely operational military) strategy for a number of very good reasons, notably constitutional ones involving respect for the supremacy of the elected civil power but not only that. Having weighty responsibility for the lives of their soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, moving from the realm of *how* to do something with military force into *should* we use force is uncomfortable and uncertain, morally speaking. It seems more "political" a role, and in truth, it is.
.
Unfortunately, while the military leadership prefers tactical questions, they at least have the professional training to know what strategy is supposed to entail and their civilian superiors often do not or do not on a level high enough to be considered optimal for a statesman and policy maker. That’s a problem. Informed citizens need to step forward and inject strategic thinking into public debate.
slapout9:
September 19th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Hi Zen, read your article at SWJ….excellant!!
zen:
September 19th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Gracias, Slap !
historyguy99:
September 20th, 2009 at 4:30 am
Zen,
Major Kudos to you and AE, for a really good piece.
Madhu,
What I read of your comments tells me you have a wise voice. Take consul from LG and Zen, audacity is your friend!
zen:
September 22nd, 2009 at 4:09 am
HG99
.
Thanks, brother. Adam deserves the majority of the cred. Left to me and my schedule, the article would have gathered dust for 10 months ( Pressfield would say "Resistance!!!")