AP: General calls for more Afghanistan troops

[John T. Fishel]

Slap, I never got to the FAS test in my previous posts.

Marc, to my way of thinking all strategy from grand strategy to theater strategy to even a business strategy should be built around the ends, ways, means construct. The differences are the levels of generalization and the level of objectives. American Grand Strategy for the Cold War was laid out pretty well in NSC 68 which really filled in trhe ways and means of the Containment Policy.

Steve, once upon a time I was also a "community organized" in Mexico and Peru. The understanding of strategy that I got as a LTC in SWORD and afterward at SSI would have stood me in good stead in those days. I would add, however, that doing strategy from the bottom up is probably one of the more difficult things one can attempt. Real stratregic corporals and PCVs are hard to come by in the best of circumstances.

Cheers

JohnT

[marct]

Hi John,

Marc, to my way of thinking all strategy from grand strategy to theater strategy to even a business strategy should be built around the ends, ways, means construct. The differences are the levels of generalization and the level of objectives. American Grand Strategy for the Cold War was laid out pretty well in NSC 68 which really filled in trhe ways and means of the Containment Policy.

The only problem I have with that construct is that it is linear (and limited), while I tend to view Grand Strategy as dynamic and highly integrated systems thinking, usually guided by a fairly well laid out philosophical underpinning. That being said, I can't think of many nations that have managed to achieve what I would truly call a Grand Strategy that lasted longer than, say 50 years or so. As you can see, I tend to take a long view when it comes to Grand Strategy .

Cheers,

Marc

[slapout9]

Hmmmm seems to be differant.
The Army says Ends+Ways+Means=Strategy.
The Marines say Ends+Means=Way(Strategy).

Link from SWJ Libraray on USMC Strategy manual
http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/mcdp1-1.pdf

[Steve the Planner]

I was just reading new and old Zbrezinski quotes.

In 1998, he was crowing about how he Carter & Gates had duped the Soviets into Afghanistan to counter our "secret" backing of the Taliban.

Now, his point is that, by increasing the amount of troops stationed in country, we will incur the same wrath as a foreign occupier----mirroring Mullah Omar's point.

How much is too much?

Back to the boring old question: What are we really trying to achieve?

Steve

[davidbfpo]

If this conflict / intervention was not taking place in Afghan culture and society - what would we seek to achieve and what would we do? This may seem abstract, but allows clearer thought IMHO.

Yes, a Grand Strategy without Afghans. Slot in your objectives such as stabilise Pakistan, deter AQ from return to the area and 'X'.

Then factor in Afghan history and the Afghans. Allow thinking on whether the aims and means are worthwhile, let alone practical, politically OK etc.

Make your decisions and issue directions.

Steve the Planner,

I think we know what the objectives are, just that few express them well. Let alone take into account the actions of the current Afghan power brokers and bandit "lords" who have done everything to reduce Western involvement.

davidbfpo