The understanding and meaning of strategy has got lost
A critique of the contemporary Anglo-US approach to conflict by Oxford University's Professor Hew Strachan, in a new book 'The Direction of War' and a short press story:
Quote:
The understanding and meaning of strategy has got lost, confused or become stripped of meaning..Without strategic thought (or clear understanding of strategy) our execution of war aims is inevitably bungled – we didn’t know what to do or how we wanted to do it in Iraq and Afghanistan.
An anonymous 'senior officer' commented:
Quote:
We as soldiers have a responsibility to ensure the options and advice we give are good and sensible material to make decisions from. On the statesman side, over the last 10 years, I don’t think they have been terribly clever about trying to understand the art of the possible. Too much has been taken for granted and not enough time taken to understand the nature of the problems we are throwing the forces into.
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...y-adviser.html
Who is the author? From the press story:
Quote:
Sir Hew, Professor of the History of War at the University of Oxford, has advised the Coalition on its treatment of the Armed Forces. He currently sits on the Chief of the Defence Staff’s Strategic Advisory Panel, and advises the UK Defence Academy, which trains senior officers.
His official bio:http://www.all-souls.ox.ac.uk/people.php?personid=67
My own view is that the British government, under all parties, has one overwhelming strategic objective - to follow the USA when and where it can. Or as one scathing critic put as the First Gulf War began "We are America's Ghurkha". All else follows from that decision.
Invariably reference is made to the 'Special Relationship' between the UK and the USA, established with difficulty in WW2 and maintained since then. As others have written the USA has many such relationships with allies, what remains special (shared with the 'Five Eyes') is the close relationship between their intelligence agencies and their military.
Obama has no sense of what he wants to do in the world.
The Daily Beast has now interviewed Sir Hew Strachan, with some pithy comment here citing the “crazy” handling of the Syrian crisis as the most egregious example of a fundamental collapse in military planning that began in the aftermath of 9/11:
Quote:
If anything it’s gone backwards instead of forwards, Obama seems to be almost chronically incapable of doing this. Bush may have had totally fanciful political objectives in terms of trying to fight a global War on Terror, which was inherently astrategic, but at least he had a clear sense of what he wanted to do in the world. Obama has no sense of what he wants to do in the world...
On what the professional should do. Part of the problem, Strachan contends, is that politicians are unduly worried about allowing military leaders to give frank and open advice. He criticized the way General Stanley McCrystal was forced to resign after making unflattering remarks about his political bosses in Washington:
Quote:
The concern about the military speaking out shows a lack of democratic and political maturity. We’re not facing the danger of a military coup. The professional experts, who deal with war all the time, should be able to express their views all the time, openly and coherently, just as you would expect a doctor or a teacher to express their views coherently about how you run medical policy or teaching policy...
Link:http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...the-world.html
Hat tip to Professor John Schindler, of NWC and a blogsite. His comment via Twitter:
Quote:
FYI Sir Hew Strachan is the most eminent military historian in the Anglosphere; these comments are devastating.
