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...