Michele Flournoy on strategy

[SteveMetz]

I found this article in Military Review a while back and have been meaning to post it. One does anybody no where there is a clear copy of the charts in the article?? Two it came out just a little while before the Arthur Lykke,jr. article and it compares( Objectives,Resources and Environment) to METT as a framework for Strategy. Thought it was interesting how much emphasis he placed on the history and culture of the country as part of the environment. Thoughts on the article??


http://calldp.leavenworth.army.mil/e...CUR_DOCUMENT=1

Seems to be an attempt to treat the security realm like the business world. Just glancing at it, I see the word "enemy" used exactly once in passing. I find such approaches misguided and potentially dangerous. It is focused on an environment of structured competition, not deadly conflict. Much more useful to look at the first chapter of Edward Luttwak's book Strategy.

[slapout9]

Seems to be an attempt to treat the security realm like the business world. Just glancing at it, I see the word "enemy" used exactly once in passing. I find such approaches misguided and potentially dangerous. It is focused on an environment of structured competition, not deadly conflict. Much more useful to look at the first chapter of Edward Luttwak's book Strategy.

Steve, are we reading the same document? In one short section enemy is mentioned 3 times plus from the article the diagram mentions subjects you bring up, can not tell for sure because the diagram is big black ink blot on my copy.

[SteveMetz]

Steve, are we reading the same document? In one short section enemy is mentioned 3 times plus from the article the diagram mentions subjects you bring up, can not tell for sure because the diagram is big black ink blot on my copy.

When I search the document for "enemy," I find it listed three times. But in every instance it is treated as the equivalent of terrain--i.e. an environmental factor that must be considered.

What I was trying to say is that in personal and business strategies, there is not an enemy whose objective it is to thwart you. Enemies (or competitors) are part of the operating environment. I think it is a terrible (but common) mistake on the part of Americans to overlook this absolutely crucial difference between security strategy and other types of strategic behavior. It's like the difference between running a road race (where you have competitors) and a football game where the opponent is deliberately acting to thwart you.

In reality, security strategy involves both competitors and enemies. But we must not let ourselves believe that it is exactly like the business world where there is only competitors.

[slapout9]

In reality, security strategy involves both competitors and enemies. But we must not let ourselves believe that it is exactly like the business world where there is only competitors.

I understand your point now.