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.
It should, but the US always fails to do that. Vietnam, Iraq, A'Stan, Pakistan Nukes, etc etc etc.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?" -?
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?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.
Bookmarks