The understanding and meaning of strategy has got lost

[TheCurmudgeon]

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:

I will have to disagree with Sir Hew on … pretty much everything. First, his comments would lead one to believe that the ONLY way a politician can effect foreign policy is though war. There are no other instruments of national power. I will take that a step further, he gives the impression that any use of military capabilities less than war are inept: that deterrence through the threat of force is not the appropriate way to use the military. Second, he seems to be under the impression that national sovereignty is a passé concept the Anglo-American Alliance is the world’s police force. What exactly was he expecting us to do in Syria? Backing away from intervention in a conflict with multiple players none of whom have interests aligned with ours seems to me to be prudent, not clueless. Third, he believes that all military decisions in a democracy should be made in public. I doubt very highly that the press was invited to Churchill’s daily briefings or that polls were held on his policies. All in all, I get the impression that he is a bitter man who misses the days of the Bush-Blair confederacy – the endless war on “evil” that made the military strategists an indispensible asset.

[TheCurmudgeon]

As for the relationship between President’s and the military, that is a subject that seems to rely mostly on the nature of the politician and the military leaders. Lincoln fired Generals until he found one he felt could fight and win. Truman fired a General because he thought that General wanted to fight and win at costs greater than Truman thought the world should bear. Bush fired Generals until he found one he felt would fight on his terms. Obama hasn’t really fired any Generals – they seem to have engineered their own demise – but Gate’s book would indicate that he does not fully trust them: that they wanted to fight beyond the point of deminishing returns. Who was right and who was wrong is a matter of speculation, but no one seems to be seriously arguing that the military should have free reign when it comes to executing war. If you believe that war is an instrument of policy, then the policy makers should decide the nature of the war.

And so we come to the problem of politicians not understanding “the art of the possible”. I would agree. But I don’t think the military understands it any better. What was militarily “possible” in Iraq and Afghanistan was accomplished. We then ran up against was a problem in the nature of the relationship between the military and their civilian masters. The civilians wanted us to fix the problem they created and the military is not in a position to say no. We say “no”, we get fired or must resign. The nature of civil-military relations gives the military commander no other options. Sure, they can always find a friendly Congressman to “force” them to testify that what the President wants is a bad idea, but that is still a political solution. Add to that the fact that you will always be able to find a General eager to get into the fight – even if they don’t understand what is “possible” any better than the politician – and the result is the military taking on missions they are unsuited for and cannot possibly accomplish. I have no solution to this problem.