"that we can clearly state objectives far more easily than we can measure attainment of them;"
Is the small wars council comfortable with this statement? If this is true, I’d question the utility (or even existence) of an objective so vague that its attainment could not be measured. How do you even know if you have the proper strategy, if you can’t measure whether you are getting anywhere near accomplishing it? I’d wager that most wars people have ever thought worth fighting in history have objectives clear enough that the people can identify progress or the lack thereof: wars of independence, punitive expeditions, repelling invasion, seizing territory for annexation. I’d also bet that such vague objectives lead to unfocused activity in the war, itself.

“AND that we may well have to operate without consensus support of either our own citizens or the international community.”
Is the small wars council comfortable with this one, too? In a political system where the voters are ultimately sovereign and politicians must answer to them at regularly scheduled elections, how does a government realistically expect to conduct an extended war without maintaining substantial public support? Has any representative republic ever been able to pull that one off?