Following up on the Strategy Links with….More Strategy! And a Few Comments
Wiggins at Opposed Systems Design responds to Kenneth Payne at CI/ KoW:
….Strategy – thinking about how to achieve goals with one’s given resources (in the face of an opponent), which generally requires one to find asymmetric advantages to exploit because one’s resources are finite – is a distinct activity from managing military operations or storming a building. National security strategy requires a familiarity with the nature of military operations and power, but it is not a simple extrapolation from these activities. It is a distinct skill (perhaps, as Watts argues, at least partially an innate skill that can be developed but not completely taught) and the way the U.S. military is currently structured, civilians may be better positioned to cultivate strategic expertise. To go back to Biddle’s example. He compared his career trajectory to that of a military officer. If he’d been a career officer, Biddle was about the age of an O-6, meaning that he’d have – at best – spent a few years in graduate school and perhaps a tour teaching at a service academy. Let’s say roughly six years where one’s primary task was to think, write and read about the elements of strategy. Much of his time would have been spent in managing increasingly large groupings of military force. Biddle, on the other hand, had spent the entirety of his career studying these dynamics.
I find myself largely in agreement with the salient points of my Wohlstetterian amigo, Wiggins. Or, as Herman Kahn once said ” How many nuclear wars have YOU fought, general?”
I am not knocking military expertise with that quote. Civilian appointees, politicians, newspaper editors, political activists or bloggers who have never heard a shot fired in anger have no business telling active duty military personnel which tactical response they should make in the heat of battle or much of the day to day, nuts and bolts, operational business of planning or running a military campaign. That’s why we have military professionals, unlike civilians, they know what the hell they are doing.
Strategy, in the sense of national objectives is quite another matter.
Military expertise, like all forms of expertise, is by definition, narrowly focused. Military people, from the most part, look at strategy from the perspective of how well a proposed strategy fits with the military’s capabilities and operational/doctrinal/cultural preferences and as they move further away from things military into other aspects of the DIME spectrum, their knowledge becomes less certain, their awareness of geopolitical opportunities and costs more vague or prone to error. I find this to be the case especially with economic implications, which are a crucial component of national power. Strategy is not supposed to be about what the institutional military likes or understands best, but it is difficult for such a systemic bias not to creep in if a nation leaves its formulation of strategy exclusively to dudes in uniform with stars on their shoulders. Nor is that how a democratic system is supposed to work when existential questions are being entertained.
Strategy, unlike expertise, is broad . It applies to more forms of conflict and competition than war alone and requires an ability to connect a panoramic vision with the drill-down focus of application. More than likely, on average, the best strategists will have some expertise in more than just one narrow field and will know a fair amount about many things and have spent a long time thinking matters through from all angles prior to acting. As a consequence, they will be able to shift cognitive perspectives more easily, a fundamental characteristic of strategic thinking.
The costs of a poorly conceived strategy are likewise broad. If tactics are bad, the soldiers on the batlefield will pay the price; if the strategy is bad, we all may pay the price.
July 2nd, 2010 at 8:59 am
Zen, a small point
You wrote: "Civilian appointees, politicians, newspaper editors, political activists or bloggers who have never heard a shot fired in anger have no business telling active duty military personnel which tactical response they should make in the heat of battle or much of the day to day, nuts and bolts, operational business of planning or running a military campaign."
I’m not sure that having heard, seen, felt or otherwise directly experienced shots fired in anger is an appropriate qualifier here. Plenty academics (and journos, war tourists, non-combatants, etc) have heard shots fired in anger. Likewise, combat veterans don’t erupt fully formed from etc etc – they too have to experience their first battles before they can make the claim to have known war. What qualifies them to run and conduct military operations prior to that? A Canadian general made the simple point a few years ago, wrt Afghanistan, that your first firefight is what qualifies you for… your first firefight. But prior to that: it’s training.
Anyway, I’m splitting hairs here somewhat.
July 2nd, 2010 at 12:43 pm
There used to be an expression and I don’t know who said it but I give him credit for it. The Politcian should not interfere with the General in the use of his tools. He can and should relieve him if he violates his policy but don’t tell how to fight, just like the General should not tell the Poltician how get elected and run his country.
July 3rd, 2010 at 4:05 am
" Canadian general made the simple point a few years ago, wrt Afghanistan, that your first firefight is what qualifies you for… your first firefight. But prior to that: it’s training."
.
Hi Mike,
.
I agree. Perhaps I was shorthanding too much. Tactical, logistical and other organizational facets of field command have an array of specific-skills born out of the training to which you point. Even as a civilian, I get uncomfortable when I read someone breezily declaring that Sgt. Whomever or Captain so-and-so should have done "X" and not "Y" in the ambush at village Godforsaken when they were neither there nor have the appropriate background to reasonably comment at a granular level.
.
Hi Slap,
.
Agreed.
July 4th, 2010 at 6:06 am
The only qualifier to discuss military affairs is a relevant level of understanding. Some of the stupidest things possible have been said by decorated and experienced soldiers.What is getting missed here is that it is the Politicians that give the Military their mission. The Military can really only use armed force against armed force. If the military is confused as to the realisation of the strategy in terms of the tactics (an essential element of strategy) then the politicians have failed to articulate their vision of Ends, Ways and Means.