Having been there, let me assure you that
Quote:
Originally Posted by
M.L.
What was our Cold War strategy? We "won" right? Yet we killed few people and broke few things.
we didn't have a strategy, we had a policy -- 'containment' -- that was implemented through a large variety of strategies (many varying from each Administration to the next...) and we killed a lot of people and broke a lot of things...
Nor did we win, we got to a qualified draw that left our nominal opponent in bad shape due to his own profligacy. We also seem determined to do the same sort of thing...:eek:
"Targeting" the noun is a US misapplication of the word targeting, a verb which itself is misuse of the noun target, a word derived from the Celtic Targe, a round shield. :cool:
Long way of saying that targeting can mean different things to different people and a reason to trot out my favorite William F. Halsey quote "Regulations were meant to be intelligently disregarded." Not just Regs, applies even more so to doctrine in general; it's a guide, not a prescription. :wry:
Quote:
""For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill. - Sun Tzu""
Sam Griffith has almost as much to answer for as does Robert Strange McNamara. FWIW, Sun Wu, CvC and John Boyd do not have all the answers -- no one does. Hewing overly strongly to the written word causes target fixation and deters flexibility...
Be sure you point out to him that in olden days
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cliff
I may need to quote you when I get my latest exam back from my CGSC tactics instructor and find out I didn't adequately follow the dotrine...
the Instructors in the then Department of Tactics at that august institution used to tell the Students at the outset:
"What we are going to teach you will work will work against a near peer opponent in gently rolling open terrain on a clear, mild June day provided you have all your personnel and equipment and all are in good operational condition. If ANY of those factors change, you'll have to adapt."
Or awfully close to that. Seriously. Got that from an old Tanker who instructed CGSC for three years. Hopefully, they're still saying something in the same vein. :wry:
Then there's the doctrine / dogma line... :D
I really appreicate the tutorial but I do believe you mispercived what I said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
M.L.
This is a common misconception. Strategy is not a method or a plan for achieving a goal.
No misperception involved. I agree with you -- and what I said is not in conflict with that. On the contrary, what you said:
Quote:
What was our Cold War strategy? We "won" right? Yet we killed few people and broke few things.
was wrong on between two and three factors depending upon how one wishes to count. ;)
Quote:
"Containment" is a strategic end state.
Is an end state a t target, in other words?
Was it an end state or a methodology to attain a goal or reach a not specified end state?
Quote:
It describes a desired effect or state of affairs.
Does it do that? Or does it describe a process to arrive at a different end state so that it, containment, is no longer required? :confused:
Quote:
It was implemented through a variety of methods (ways) using a variety of resources (means), including diplomatic, information, military, and economic.
Agreed.
Quote:
Like it or not, military operations are a small part of strategy. What most people take to be strategy is really operational art, or even tactics.
Gee, who knew. And all those years from the mid 50s forward I've been telling folks they were confusing the two I was right all along and apparently didn't know it... :D
However, I totally agree that military operations are or should be a small part of an effective strategy if used at all. That's one of the few Sun Wu and John Boyd things that does apply
In any event. My points stand. Containment was a policy not a strategy and that is proven by assessing the ends, ways and means involved. It was a policy to be followed by a variety of methods including numerous strategies -- and theoretical 'ends' -- that did vary from Prez to Prez. If a strategy is a proactive continuum, it fails on that count also due to said Presidential stops, redirects and starts. The US has great difficulty with strategy due to our political process, electoral cycle. Even during WW II with an unusual and singularly focused government we had several changes in strategy. Correctly, strategy must cope with events and other can impact. Thus, containment, a policy of the US government that carried through eight Administrations was obtained through a variety of way, means -- and strategies -- that adapted to a changing environment.
We killed a bunch of people and broke a lot of stuff in the process. I believe that over 100K US killed and millions of others could be a 'bunch.' Several nations are still recovering from the things we broke in the process (including the US... :( ).
Further, it appears Slap was right. If "... (containment) describes a desired effect or state of affairs..." then that state is a target and if containment was a strategy, then strategy must allow targets? Or did I miss something? I'm old and slow so I may be confused but it truly and not snarkily appears to me you're trying to have it both ways.