Strategy and change over time

[Ken White]

My position is that doctrine and strategy are interrelated and ought to create a dynamoic that causes a continuous reassessment and revision of on based on what is (or isn't working) in the other.

I agree. My belief however is that such is not now the case...

Wilf's last post indicates to me that he will disagree for he holds yet a third position on the definition of strategy.

I'm not sure that's a third position (with respect to this thread, thus far, though I'm not sure where John T. and Rob might fall...). I agree with Wilf, strategy, to me is political (and is very much based on domestic politics) and that has been true since the Republic was founded. Winfield Scott succeeded as well and as quickly as he did only because he was at the end of a long message chain. Every US Commander since then has more closely followed the dictates of the Administration in power -- as they're supposed to.

That needs a caveat -- the national government determines the strategy and the services execute their portion of that. In the process, they may develop subsidiary and implementing strategies of their own but their task is essentially -- or should be -- purely military and most such 'strategies' are merely aggrandized operational plans. I realize that today for many reasons, the services are involved in other than purely military tasks and that undesirable condition will not soon disappear but their effort is still operational and strategic implementation rather than the development of strategy.

I also realize the services must have input to the strategic process, the 'M' in DIME and I think DIME about hits it -- the service input is or should be about 25% of the total.

Further, your contention on materiel is, as I agreed earlier, spot on -- and doctrine does drive that procurement ergo doctrine does affect strategy. That's okay, it should. What doctrine should not do is effect strategy beyond that parameter -- and even that should be modified if needed.

Let me give an example. I believe 'Strategic' Raids are feasible and for the impatient US, desirable. They are not really part of our doctrine -- indeed the doctrine writers have been told not to go there -- thus we have no 'requirement' for totally covert insertion and egress capability for medium sized combat elements. Therefor, that option is denied strategic planners. I could also have fun with Kosovo but that's another thread...

As to doctrine being used as an excuse for risk aversion, I submit that we have a doctrine which has risk aversion at its center rather than the other way around. Working with a doctrine that uses technology to reduce the risk of casualties has been with the US military for a long time--off the top of my head, I'd say since at least the end of the Civil War. (Please don't beat me up on this last point for I have nothing other than gut feel to support it right now.)

Yes and no, I think. No question that your statement is correct in application -- but IMO, that was over the years simply the desire of good Commanders; to make the other SOB die for his country. In my observation, the stronger emphasis on force protection and minimizing casualties as 'doctrine' (written or not...) occurred only after Viet Nam (and Mogadishu) when many people misread -- and are still misreading IMO -- many things. The American people, broadly are more accepting of casualties (provided some payback is obvious) than are Politicians.

The services today are more politically focused than at any time in my life; though they have been understandably attuned to the political for all my life. Low casualties are a politically desirable as well as militarily desirable thing -- it used to be that the effort to preclude casualties was almost totally militarily driven. I'm not at all sure that is the case today. My sensing is that it is not.

During the Cold War, we used to say that besides our technolgical edge, the thing that would allow us to win WWIII was the innovativenss of our junior officers and NCOs, that we, unlike our Soviet counterparts, were not hamstrung by an unthinking attachment to doctrine. I used to fear that this was not the case and think that Ken has similar fears based on his closing lines in the above quotation.

On attachment to doctrine we have indeed become overly attached and will be hamstrung by that attachment if we do not change. Pogo was right; we have met the enemy and he is us...

I do not have fears, I watched the destruction of innovation and intitiative, inadvertent to be sure but none the less very damaging, take place from 1949 through 1962 in very slight increments as the Army got into the peacetime swing after WW II with only a hiccup for Korea. In the early 60s, McNamara induced stupidity rapidly accelerated that trend, the one year tour in Viet Nam cemented it into place as a way of life and a deeply flawed training regimen has exacerbated the problem since 1975. Recall that the nation and the Army -- the Pentagon -- have not really been at war since 1945; they've sent people off to fight wars to be sure but the peacetime mentality has not been banished. We've simply done what all Armies do in peacetime, allowed ourselves to be buried in minutia...

Uniform changes are a great example of peacetime mentalities in Armies. Did I ever tell you that White Shirts are for Waiters...

Thus from 1949 until 1995 I watched an organization eat its young and move into the shade. It wasn't a pleasant thing to see and I retired several years before I wanted to simply because I didn't want to continue to be a part of the destruction. Fortunately, I've now totally retired and I'd really like to see a reversal of all that before I head south...

Afghanistan and Iraq have helped lift some -- not enough but some -- of the stifling. We'll see where that goes...

[Rob Thornton]

Hmm - something we were sidebarring today - if campaigns and operations that fill them out are the physical manifestation of the ways - or the way the "ways" play out on the ground, and they in turn drive the requirements or the "means", then how does doctrine - and I mean doctrine in terms of what is accepted as being appropriate and feasible given a current set of beliefs - beliefs based on recent experience, popular wisdom, or convenience, - drive strategy?

Its a kind of back door manner of doctrine driving strategy I guess - maybe it happens without us really even realizing it. I may regret going down this road, but I was reading one of the blog posts where COL Gentile asked Niel to imagine a different way of achieving stated objectives in AfPak. In fact the whole GG debate is worth considering in this light (which to be fair is I think the thrust of his argument)

I tend to agree that there is the way we describe the relationship of strategy to doctrine (and to operations and tactics), which is one we can articulate and teach, one that suits our our need to order; but I also believe that description is subject to influences we either don't acknowledge or discount because it would force us to re-examine things we'd rather not.

This is why I thought Ken's observation on the relationship between strategy and doctrine was valuable, it acknowledges the requirement to at least re-examine the strategy and the ideas which support it, and be self critical. Otherwise no matter what the equation, the sum always = the same. I suppose then that is where I come down, it fits with my thoughts on the relationship between requirements and capabilities.

I find myself thinking more and more about Marc's comments about how we form our perception of reality and how we often avoid challenging it, how we defend it, etc.

Best, Rob

[wm]

I find myself thinking more and more about Marc's comments about how we form our perception of reality and how we often avoid challenging it, how we defend it, etc.

If we combine this idea with Wilf's point that doctrine is, rather literally, what is taught, then I think we must end up giving the nod to doctrine as driving strategy. This follows from claims that our language shapes our reality (or at least how we communication our perceptions of our reality) and that our language is taught to us--unlike the way Athena was born from Zeus, language does not spring from our heads fully-formed. Since it is taught to us, it is a form of doctrine. Thus, doctrine forces how we undertake our strategic approaches since it constrains what we can speak about and how we can say/express it to others. This view also seems to map quite nicely to BW's staff UW approach--his technique is a way of introducing a new set of meanings into the heads of the Cerberus-like policy wonks past whom he and his fellows must move to get their agendas approved and funded by Hades/Pluto (who just happens to be the god of wealth/the riches of the earth as well as the god of the dead).
(Sorry for the excursus into Greco-Roman mythology. Perhaps Rob's invocation of MarcT pushed me in that direction. )

BTW, if we want to follow Wilf's lead and identify the meaning of doctrine by reflection on its Latin origins (docere--to teach), perhaps we should do the same with strategy, which derives from the ancient Greek strategos. The office was more than just a miltary one, even though the term is usually translated into English as 'general.' Here's a link to consider .

[William F. Owen]

If we combine this idea with Wilf's point that doctrine is, rather literally, what is taught, then I think we must end up giving the nod to doctrine as driving strategy. This follows from claims that our language shapes our reality (or at least how we communication our perceptions of our reality) and that our language is taught to us--unlike the way Athena was born from Zeus, language does not spring from our heads fully-formed.

The idea that doctrine is what is taught, is not mine. It is what the word means.
Additionally, I would say that doctrine should be substantially why something is done, not how. That allows for the role of context. This is useful when applied to military operations. It is very much less useful, when you have something like the Powell/Weinberger Doctrine, which is actually not a doctrine at all, but a check list, based on a selective reading of history

BTW, if we want to follow Wilf's lead and identify the meaning of doctrine by reflection on its Latin origins (docere--to teach), perhaps we should do the same with strategy, which derives from the ancient Greek strategos.

I would strongly caution against anyone following me, but I would suggest having clear and shared understanding of the terms we are using.

Rob Thornton
I find myself thinking more and more about Marc's comments about how we form our perception of reality and how we often avoid challenging it, how we defend it, etc.

Well there is the crux of the matter. Most folk here do not challenge the messages they gain from, and stay clear of those who will challenge them.
It's extremely interesting that most of the well known names who post on Journal, stay clear of the discussions on the board.

[slapout9]

The problem I think is you have to get them all right. On another thread I mentioned the word alignment. The Political Objective has to be achievable and has to link or align with Strategy and Doctrine and Operations and finally Tactics. That is what makes it all so hard and when something goes wrong there is a tendency to blame one part instead of looking at the whole linkage of different processes. If you fail at the highest level it can affect the outcome of everything else at the lower levels no matter how good each piece is by itself.

[John T. Fishel]

Doctrine drives strategy - yes, but strategy also drives doctrine.

"All politics is local." Tip O'Neil, Speaker of the US House. - yes and necessarily so.

Stuff drives doctrine which drives stategy which drives doctrine whch drives stuff - which came first, the chicken or the egg? - yes

Staff UW is HOW "we" can influence strategic development. Writ large, it is the story of the surge (see Woodward's The War Within, Robinson's Tell Me How This Ends, and Ricks' The Gamble).

Back to politics and strategy and for a different definition, see Steve Metz' Iraq and the Evolution of American Strategy. This also raises the question of Grand Strategy, National Strategy, Theater Strategy...

On innovation, we go back and forth. But, in the end, my perception (nod to Marct) is that the military does tend to reward it more often than we suspect. I have been amazed at the number of our newly selected general officers who don't fit the expected mold/career pattern.

Cheers

JohnT

[John T. Fishel]

Wm, my definition of strategy is fully compatible with yours

[wm]

Wm, my definition of strategy is fully compatible with yours

Concur John. I think the one I lifted from the JP is actually a wholely contained subset of yours.

[William F. Owen]

OK, Do doctrine writers get a brief from the State Department on the National Strategy? Did State sign off on FM100-5 or FM3? If not, then Strategy does not drive doctrine, or vice versa.

More over what doctrine and what strategy? They are very wide areas of concern. I am aware of tactical and operational doctrine. What is Strategic Doctrine?