SOURCE:
http://stanford.edu/class/polisci211z/1.2/1.2.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326249412_Grand_Strategy
https://www.grandstrategy.com.au/post/military-strategy-
Grand Strategy
• What is (Grand) Strategy?
• Is Strategy an Illusion?
• What are the options for a Grand Strategy for the US?
What is Strategy?
• Sun Tzu: Doesn’t define, but…
• Clausewitz: “The use of engagements for the object of the war.”
• Betts: “[T]he link between military means and political ends, the scheme for how to make one produce the other.”
Three Critiques of Strategy
1. Anything can be justified/rationalized in advance
2. Nothing can be selected post hoc
3. Psychological, organizational, or political barriers prevent effective strategies
1.Anything Goes?
• Difficult to determine chances before
• Some strategies not ambitious enough – Desert Fox “degrade” Hussein’s capabilities
• What’s a good risk? – Hitler, Churchill, MacArthur
• Material standards v. Moral Standards – Difficult to determine risks beforehand; moral implications easier to judge.
2.Nothing Goes?
• Problem is not risks, but uncertainty
• 1/2 of all strategies lose…
• Many win despite strategies… – Serbia, Bosnia
• Many lose the peace after winning… – Persian Gulf I, II?
• Strategies backfire in the long term – Afghanistan
• Non-linearities
• But ceteris paribus, strategy is still useful.
3a. Individual Pathologies
• Psychological: Self-delusion of strategists – “See what they want to see.”
• Cognitive: Strategy too complex – “See what they expect to see.”
• Cultural: Communication a problem – “See what they are taught to see.”
• Problems, but overemphasized and circumventable.
3b. Organizational Pathologies
• Operational Friction prevents expression – Vietnam bombing strategies: tit-for-tat
• Goal Displacement leads to hijacking – Daily Air Tasking Order in Gulf War I
• True, but don’t determine outcomes of wars.
http://stanford.edu/class/polisci211z/1.2/1.2.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326249412_Grand_Strategy
https://www.grandstrategy.com.au/post/military-strategy-
Grand Strategy
• What is (Grand) Strategy?
• Is Strategy an Illusion?
• What are the options for a Grand Strategy for the US?
What is Strategy?
• Sun Tzu: Doesn’t define, but…
• Clausewitz: “The use of engagements for the object of the war.”
• Betts: “[T]he link between military means and political ends, the scheme for how to make one produce the other.”
Three Critiques of Strategy
1. Anything can be justified/rationalized in advance
2. Nothing can be selected post hoc
3. Psychological, organizational, or political barriers prevent effective strategies
1.Anything Goes?
• Difficult to determine chances before
• Some strategies not ambitious enough – Desert Fox “degrade” Hussein’s capabilities
• What’s a good risk? – Hitler, Churchill, MacArthur
• Material standards v. Moral Standards – Difficult to determine risks beforehand; moral implications easier to judge.
2.Nothing Goes?
• Problem is not risks, but uncertainty
• 1/2 of all strategies lose…
• Many win despite strategies… – Serbia, Bosnia
• Many lose the peace after winning… – Persian Gulf I, II?
• Strategies backfire in the long term – Afghanistan
• Non-linearities
• But ceteris paribus, strategy is still useful.
3a. Individual Pathologies
• Psychological: Self-delusion of strategists – “See what they want to see.”
• Cognitive: Strategy too complex – “See what they expect to see.”
• Cultural: Communication a problem – “See what they are taught to see.”
• Problems, but overemphasized and circumventable.
3b. Organizational Pathologies
• Operational Friction prevents expression – Vietnam bombing strategies: tit-for-tat
• Goal Displacement leads to hijacking – Daily Air Tasking Order in Gulf War I
• True, but don’t determine outcomes of wars.
No comments:
Post a Comment