Strategic Compression

[Steve Blair]

I think what you see with strategic compression is a percieved (or actual) desire on the part of higher commanders or echelons to control all aspects of warfare down to the tactical level. As was pointed out, tactical decisions and events have had an impact on higher levels of warfare for some time, especially when the war is viewed as more political (historical small wars, for example) than military in basic nature, and of course the reverse has also been true.

The basic problem to me occurs when higher levels attempt to inject their opinions and desires at levels where it is not appropriate. "Leadership by Charlie-Charlie bird" as seen in Vietnam has been replaced by the video conference, but the results are the same. Undermining the confidence of tactical leaders does not contribute to them making good decisions, and increases the possibility of a tactical decision that will have negative strategic impacts. Higher level commanders are frequently not aware of the realities on the ground. This does not mean that tactical commanders have a superior knowledge of the strategic situation, but that this sort of compression makes it easier for such interfearence to occur.

Strategic compression is to me a matter of timelines. Where previously one could count on a delay with press matters, now it's a matter of hours or minutes. Fear of reacting badly delays a response on the part of strategic leaders, or leads to a hasty response. In either case you have a compression that forces leaders onto the defensive and gives those who make hasty or sensational accusations an advantage in the media cycle.