Who are "The Strategists"?

**Bob's World** · 06-05-2010

One of the biggest challenges I see in the US is that too many seem to think that "Strategy" is a matter of position, education, rank or duty assignment.

Also, in the US, to reinforce this falacy, when one gets to their Senior Service College, they get the "now that you are at this level, we will teach you strategy and send you out the door as a strategist" pitch, which I personnally found a bit (disturgingly) amusing. Both in that we think someone has to be a Colonel to have this talent; and also in that we think all Colonels can somehow be taught it.

Like so many things in life, strategic thinking is a talent that is not very common, and that must be devleoped and nurtured from an early age. If you never had the talent to begin with, you will never be much of a strategist regardless of your Ph.D., or the fact that you are a War College grad assigned to a Strategy shop on the Joint Staff.

I think we also over codify the term "Strategy." Certainly it is a word that means many things to many people. We need professional terms of art, but I'm not sure we have this quite right yet. As John points out, there are those few who emerge from the pact that had a combination of vision, position and skill to move a concept forward.

Not sure if CvC falls into that pack, as most of his impact was through how others took his ideas and applied them to their work after he was dead. (this final sentence added solely for the entertainment value of poking the CvC disciples!) :-)

**William F. Owen** · 06-05-2010

Originally Posted by Bob's World

If you never had the talent to begin with, you will never be much of a strategist regardless of your Ph.D., or the fact that you are a War College grad assigned to a Strategy shop on the Joint Staff.

I am in absolute and un-restrained agreement!!

I think we also over codify the term "Strategy." Certainly it is a word that means many things to many people. We need professional terms of art, but I'm not sure we have this quite right yet. As John points out, there are those few who emerge from the pact that had a combination of vision, position and skill to move a concept forward.

I disagree. We actually have an extremely precise and useful language for this. The problem is folks are ignorant of it. People still say "Strategic Weapon" or "Air power is Strategic." - which just show that a great many senior officers do not know what strategy is.

Not sure if CvC falls into that pack, as most of his impact was through how others took his ideas and applied them to their work after he was dead.

Well Moa Ze-Dong was a student of Clausewitz as was Giap. The real problem is that 99% of folks quoting and contesting Clausewitz have never read or studied his work. (this sentence added solely for the entertainment value of poking the CvC detractors)
We're still left with the fact that when it comes to the instrumental use, of violence as a means to set forth policy, no one has been able to improve on his work.
CvC was not even that original. All he did was to write down what he saw as the enduring truth as gained by a classical understanding of human history. - which is why his work is so timeless.

(this final sentence added solely for the entertainment value of poking the CvC disciples!) :-)

Wallah? Wow... never saw that coming.

- but if anyone can show me better work, I'm interested.