IMO, the biggest problem is that we insist on forcing every conflict, regardless of nature or form, into the Clausewitzian war box.
I think we are better served if we recognize two broad categories of conflict, each of which requires a completely different understanding and logic to understand, address or assess.
The first of these is your classic interstate conflict, or "state-based conflict". This is war and apply Clausewitz liberally (or literally) as you choose. While having a smart strategy is preferable, one can win through tactical victories regardless of their strategic shortfalls. All one must do is sieze and hold ground, defeat or destroy warmaking capacity, and coerce the Army, Government (and people if one intends to stay) of the opponent and one wins. This lends itself to neat metrics of tanks destoyed, miles advanced, rivers crossed, etc, etc, etc. In short, the sum of tactics will ultimately add up to strategy. Objective measures are relevant. Each commander can measure what he did in his sector during his tenure to assess his personal and unit success. These separate reports can then be added to tell a comprehensive story of if one is "winning" or "losing."
The other category of conflict is intrastate conflict, or "populace-based conflict." This may be war, but often is not war at all and is better thought of as an extreme form of civil emergency. In these types of conflicts success does not come from defeating the capacity of the challenger's ability to fight or controlling his terrain, or capturing his flag. Rather, success comes from understanding and repairing the perceptions of governance resident among some population (or populations) that have been driven (or neglected) to the point where they feel compelled to illegally, and often violently, challenge these existing, offending, systems of governance.
In these types of conflicts all tactical action should be designed and executed with primary strategic purpose of shaping these perceptions in positive directions, even when the immediate, tactical purpose my be to defeat some force, clear some village, or extend electricity to a region previously dark. One can certainly measure in objective ways all of those tactical actions - but all one learns from such measures is what one has done. Much more important to appreciate is HOW the actions were done, and what effect they had on the critical perceptions of the populations the illegal challengers are coming from - but also non-problematic domestic populations and populations abroad with only indirect or perhaps no stake at all in the conflict.
This is incredibly subjective. It cannot be measured during a single commander's tenure, nor within the confines of his battle space. One cannot tell which commander is good or bad, as what they did that can be measured is largely meaningless in of itself - rather it is how they did what they did and how those actions were perceive that matters. That, however only manifests over time and is impossible to attribute to any particular man, unit or action.
We must evolve in how we think about conflict in general before we can evolve in how we assess the effectiveness of our actions. I personally see little inclination to learn or evolve in that direction. Meanwhile we have our "Made in Iraq" generals (I see HR McMaster is nominated for his 3rd star) and our "Made in Afghanistan" generals. All possible because we could objectively measure the superiority of these commanders over their peers by what they did during their tenures and within their battle space. We celebrate tactical excellence, and turn a blind eye to strategic failure.
Strategic failure in the face of such tactical excellence cannot be our fault, so it is blamed on convenient foils, such as: "complexity" or "ideology" or host governments/security forces/populations (or our own at home) who "lack the will" to win. We widely recognize that the global strategic environment has fundamentlaly changed and that power is shifting to be more balanced between those within government and those outside of government. Yet we cling to our old thinking and practices.
Bottom line is that we suck stategically at populace-based conflicts primarily because it is we who lack the skill or will to recognize that they are fundamentally different than state-based conflicts. Afterall, doing so would require a much fuller accounting of the causal role of governments (the local one as well as those who intervene) in these conflicts - and besides, how would we know who to promote??
Bookmarks