The Clausewitz Collection (merged thread)

[William F. Owen]

My theory is normal people don't like talking about things like that so they come up with all this JabberWacky talk to make them feel better about what they are really doing or going to do.

Steady on Tiger!
I'm all for simple and clear spoken or written language, as demonstrating simple and clear thinking. Yes killing and destruction lie at the heart of the military instrument, but "go f*ck 'em up" does not provide a clear basis for guidance.

[slapout9]

Yes killing and destruction lie at the heart of the military instrument, but "go f*ck 'em up" does not provide a clear basis for guidance.

I was having a Stan moment "All problems can be solved by the proper application of high explosives."

But is does bring to light the non-escapable cause of wars and that is people. CvC said it was policy and it is policy but policy comes from people and often the people that make bad policy never have to pay any consequence for making the bad policy, so sometimes "go f@@k em up" has it's place. It's the would you have assassinated Hitler question?

[M.L.]

So what you are saying is the the formulation of Policy is the most fundamental act of strategy?
Policy stand separate from strategy, so I suggest the most fundamental act of strategy is to apply the Ways (Strategy) and Means (Tactics) to gain the Ends (Policy).
The point is your Policy may well be in place before it is opposed and thus require a strategy. Policy is usually the cause of war, thus exists before the strategy is necessary, BUT the Policy will usually have alter to be achievable in Ways and Means. Is this what you meant?

Strategy = Ends, Ways, and Means

Ends = Goals / Desired End State
Ways = Methods
Means = Resources

Strategy begins at the national level with a policy. There are four instruments of national power that may be used to achieve that policy:
Diplomacy, Information, Economics, and Military. Some call this "Grand Strategy."

The next level down is military strategy (though U.S. doctrine does not distinguish between the two). Military strategy also begins with ends; goals / desired end state. This could mean a military operation, but it could also mean deterrence of a foe or strengthening of an ally.

What is the current military strategy in Korea? One of deterrence.

What was our Cold War strategy? We "won" right? Yet we killed few people and broke few things.

It is only when we go down another level, to the operational level, that we begin to pick targets.

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

If strategy is about targeting, then how would you explain this quote?

[slapout9]

1-You deter people by threatening the targets they consider valuable/vital to their continued existence. If the threat is directed toward a target they do not consider valuable then there will be know deterrence.

2-The quote is from Sun Tzu not Clausewitz, but it is still targeting because the target is the "mind" of your opponent.

[Ken White]

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...

"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.

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.

""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...

[Cliff]

Hewing overly strongly to the written word causes target fixation and deters flexibility...

Ken-

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...

V/R,

Cliff

[Ken White]

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.

Then there's the doctrine / dogma line...

[M.L.]

1-You deter people by threatening the targets they consider valuable/vital to their continued existence. If the threat is directed toward a target they do not consider valuable then there will be know deterrence.

2-The quote is from Sun Tzu not Clausewitz, but it is still targeting because the target is the "mind" of your opponent.

I thought you said strategy=targeting, and targeting=killing people/breaking things...?

Strategy in the end is targeting....who you gonna kill and what are you gonna blow up in order to achieve the political objective.

Well, anyway...there are plenty of people who would agree with you...and many of them worked at CENTCOM in 2002/03.

I take it, then, you would say that the other instruments of power, diplomacy, information, and economics, are not a part of strategy?

[M.L.]

we didn't have a strategy, we had a policy -- 'containment' -- that was implemented through a large variety of strategies.

This is a common misconception. Strategy is not a method or a plan for achieving a goal.

"Containment" is a strategic end state. It describes a desired effect or state of affairs. It was implemented through a variety of methods (ways) using a variety of resources (means), including diplomatic, information, military, and economic.

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.

[Ken White]

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:

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.

"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?

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?

It was implemented through a variety of methods (ways) using a variety of resources (means), including diplomatic, information, military, and economic.

Agreed.

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...

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.

[Pete]

Who is this Karl Clausewitz guy and what is his claim to fame? Is he some sort of Dutchman? The Army doesn't need foreign intruders like him muddying the waters of serious discussions about military affairs. This troublemaker should be put in his place by having an NCO from Mississippi deal with him. Maybe Herr Clausewitz would see the light about not causing any further trouble after doing some push-ups, sit-ups, and what the U.S. Army quaintly calls the side-straddle hop.

[William F. Owen]

Strategy = Ends, Ways, and Means

Ends = Goals / Desired End State
Ways = Methods
Means = Resources

Strategy begins at the national level with a policy. There are four instruments of national power that may be used to achieve that policy:
Diplomacy, Information, Economics, and Military. Some call this "Grand Strategy."

To me (and Clausewitz?), Ends is Policy, that is the Policy being opposed. Ways is strategy, and Means is Tactics (= Means of fighting). Thus you have Colin Grays metaphor "The Strategy Bridge" between Ends and Means (Policy and Tactics.)
Yes, strategy employs "all instruments of power." Not sure about there being four or that they are "national." The IRA and Al-Qieda "do/did strategy" with no national status.
Some discussions on this issue should soon be forthcoming at Infinity Journal

[M.L.]

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.

Now you are playing with semantics. Is a "target" the same as a "goal?" If you use the dictionary definition, yes; down there somewhere a target it a goal. However, this is not how the word "target" is used in military parlance or US doctrine.

The quote from slapout9 that touched off the discussion was this:
"Strategy in the end is targeting....who you gonna kill and what are you gonna blow up in order to achieve the political objective."

This definition of targeting is closer to the traditional military meaning, HOWEVER, as I said at the beginning, strategy is more than targeting.

To me (and Clausewitz?), Ends is Policy, that is the Policy being opposed. Ways is strategy, and Means is Tactics (= Means of fighting). Thus you have Colin Grays metaphor "The Strategy Bridge" between Ends and Means (Policy and Tactics.)

I'd agree with you with everything except means=tactics. Means are resources, not methods. For example, the U.S. Army is an example of means. All together, it might look like this (simplified, of course):

National Strategy for Iraq
Ends (Policy): Regime Change
Ways: Military Action
Means: CENTCOM and assigned forces, allied forces

[Bob's World]

Obviously "Strategy" is a word used in many ways by many communities and cultures. Equally obviously, even within the military context it can have many meanings.

Slap comes at it with more of an Airforce perspective, and as a student of Airforce strategists. The Air Force can only deliver things, so it is quite natural, and not "wrong" for this community to tend to thing of strategy in terms of targeting.

The value of this forum is that we get a chance to hear from a wide range of perspectives on topics like this and expand our horizons a bit in the process.

For me, the aspect of "strategy" I find the most interesting and helpful is not really tied to level of command or to "Ends-Ways-Means" (or to targeting); but rather to seeking a level of understanding of some issue or problem that helps one to shape effective programs of deterrence or response. CvC's trinity is an example of this. It provides a framework that one can lay over any interstate dynamic to apply the facts of the situation against in a manner that is helpful to deterring or responding to warfare.

So, really no "right or wrong"; merely some ideas that are more interesting or helpful than others.

[William F. Owen]

I'd agree with you with everything except means=tactics. Means are resources, not methods.

So strategy links policy with "resources" thus men and equipment?

Classical teaching of Strategy is linking Policy with Tactics. If someone describes something as a "Means to an End", then surely they are suggesting methods used to gain an outcome. Thus when people say the "Ends justify the means" I do not think many are suggesting that the resources expended were done so for good reason. Generally "Means" refers to methods, thus tactics. Clausewitz certainly meant "Means" as being tactics, or more generally "Combat." - Page 95, "let us now turn to the means. There is only one: Combat!"

Additionally, the means can bear on the policy and thus modify it, which again would logically suggest means to be methods and not resources.

[Ken White]

Now you are playing with semantics. Is a "target" the same as a "goal?" If you use the dictionary definition, yes; down there somewhere a target it a goal. However, this is not how the word "target" is used in military parlance or US doctrine.

Yep, sure was playing. Couldn't resist it, too great an opportunity to pass up.

The quote from slapout9 that touched off the discussion...This definition of targeting is closer to the traditional military meaning, HOWEVER, as I said at the beginning, strategy is more than targeting.

No question and I agree. I even went briefly into the etymology of the word, pointing out our misuse of it...

With which lacking this sub thread wouldn't exist.

I do agree with Bob's World: that stategy, distilled is ""seeking a level of understanding of some issue or problem that helps one to shape effective programs of deterrence or response. CvC's trinity is an example of this. It provides a framework that one can lay over any interstate dynamic to apply the facts of the situation against in a manner that is helpful to deterring or responding to warfare.

So, really no "right or wrong"; merely some ideas that are more interesting or helpful than others.""

However, he and I have a long standing disagreement over whether the US can have a grand or national strategy. He thinks we really need one and it's possible. I agree it's needed but believe our political process in most circumstances (not all; true existential threats will change that) will not allow it; the domestic, inside the Beltway, infighting will prevent it -- much as containment was a political football during the aberration that was the Cold War.

[Bob's World]

We've been under what Dr. John Lewis Gaddis and others describe as "Grand Strategies of Containment" since the late 1940s.

Personally, I think what worked well enough to get us through the Cold War is in many ways contributing to what we call GWOT today.

Coming soon is a piece proposing a change from this negative, controlling framework to a more positive approach that I see as "A Grand Strategy of Empowerment."

[H. Nelson]

There was a reason Clausewitz wanted his papers burned at his death. 'On War' was an unfinished, poorly thought out, self-contradictory notebook of thoughts.

Sun Tzu is far superior, and if you add him to Boyd you get Maneuver Warfare Theory. I am pretty sure the marines have a statue of Boyd, but I doubt they have one of Clausewitz.

If Clausewitz ever added real value to warefare, it was to frame it as a science. Other than that, he just advanced a murderous and tedious type of fighting that had large consequences in WWI.

Cheers,

H.

http://onparadox.blogspot.com/

[Ken White]

We've been under what Dr. John Lewis Gaddis and others describe as "Grand Strategies of Containment" since the late 1940s.

the plural.

Varied strategies in support of a policy of containment. I agree.

[M.L.]

Obviously "Strategy" is a word used in many ways by many communities and cultures. Equally obviously, even within the military context it can have many meanings.

Slap comes at it with more of an Airforce perspective, and as a student of Airforce strategists. The Air Force can only deliver things, so it is quite natural, and not "wrong" for this community to tend to thing of strategy in terms of targeting.

The value of this forum is that we get a chance to hear from a wide range of perspectives on topics like this and expand our horizons a bit in the process.

For me, the aspect of "strategy" I find the most interesting and helpful is not really tied to level of command or to "Ends-Ways-Means" (or to targeting); but rather to seeking a level of understanding of some issue or problem that helps one to shape effective programs of deterrence or response. CvC's trinity is an example of this. It provides a framework that one can lay over any interstate dynamic to apply the facts of the situation against in a manner that is helpful to deterring or responding to warfare.

So, really no "right or wrong"; merely some ideas that are more interesting or helpful than others.

Well, I suppose we can all adopt a normative view of strategy. Personally, I'm not giving an op-ed. The Ends-Ways-Means construct I'm advocating isn't my personal pet rock - it is the most commonly accepted definition in military circles and among professional strategists, not to mention US joint doctrine.

Still, to each his own...