Quote Originally Posted by rborum View Post
I have always understood "strategy" to refer primarily to a plan for how to accomplish an objective through specific means (e.g., Liddell Hart's definition of strategy as “the art of distributing and applying military means to fulfill the ends of policy”).
Yes, Strategy is "The use of all instruments of power, including force, to gain a policy objective." Military Strategy is just the use of force, but it almost never operates in isolation.
IMO, Liddell-Hart was a clown, who did a good amount of damage to the academic study of military power.

BUT, what fails to be addressed is that as a Strategy can only be realised by Tactics, a Policy can only be realised by Strategy. There is no point in having a policy that lacks a strategy to apply it. - and no point in having a Strategy that cannot be realised in tactics.
When a nation outlines a policy objective, shouldn't it be able to answer the questions of "why?" "so what if we accomplish it?" and "so what if we don't accomplish it?" -?
It should, but the US always fails to do that. Vietnam, Iraq, A'Stan, Pakistan Nukes, etc etc etc.
I cannot recall reading anywhere a clear explanation of what the U.S. wants from Iran or what the U.S. would like for Iran to be or to do.
The US wants Iran to become a peaceful, pro-western, secular, Gulf State, who will buy lots of goods and services from the US. When was that ever not made clear?