Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Michele Flournoy on strategy

  1. #21
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rancho La Espada, Blanchard, OK
    Posts
    1,065

    Default Hi Paul and welcome

    I sometimes forget that I am not just writnig for an American audience here - mea culpa

    While I agree with you that grand strategy should be the business of the civilian government, the civilians - particularly the non-defense civilians - are often terribly deficient in their knowledge of the strategy business, at least in the US. That, indeed, was one of the points I was trying to make. Where Michele Flournoy, as a civilian defense policymaker, was/is a strategist, most of her counterparts in State and elsewhere were/are not.

    In our system, the military is not excluded from the grand strategy development process. By law, the CJCS sits as a statutory advisor to the National Security Council. By policy, he sits as a full member of the Principals Committee of the NSC. By policy, the VCJCS sits as a full member of the Deputies committee of the NSC and military members sit as full members of the Policy coordinating Committees, etc. The point is that in our system the military is fully integrated into the strategy and policy processes, Indeed, our civilian side of DOD integrates military officers as high as the level of Deputy Assistant Secretaries of Defense. (As an aside, when I first met Marine Gen. Chuck Wilhelm who later commanded SOUTHCOM, he was a 2 star DAS-D in the ASD/SO-LIC.) We also have civilians serving in positions on the Joint Staff (the military side). As I understand the UK system the Chief of Defence Staff and the MOD are separately structured with military members in the former and civilians in the latter. Coordination takes place in formal meetings as well as informal consultation but civilians and military are not normally integrated in the same staff.

    When I was teaching strategy at Leavenworth we made similar distinctions to those you say current British doctrine has removed. Hope we haven't made the same mistakes.

    Cheers

    JohnT

  2. #22
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default A Basic Strategy Framework

    I found this article in Military Review a while back and have been meaning to post it. One does anybody no where there is a clear copy of the charts in the article?? Two it came out just a little while before the Arthur Lykke,jr. article and it compares( Objectives,Resources and Environment) to METT as a framework for Strategy. Thought it was interesting how much emphasis he placed on the history and culture of the country as part of the environment. Thoughts on the article??


    http://calldp.leavenworth.army.mil/e...CUR_DOCUMENT=1

  3. #23
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    I found this article in Military Review a while back and have been meaning to post it. One does anybody no where there is a clear copy of the charts in the article?? Two it came out just a little while before the Arthur Lykke,jr. article and it compares( Objectives,Resources and Environment) to METT as a framework for Strategy. Thought it was interesting how much emphasis he placed on the history and culture of the country as part of the environment. Thoughts on the article??


    http://calldp.leavenworth.army.mil/e...CUR_DOCUMENT=1
    Seems to be an attempt to treat the security realm like the business world. Just glancing at it, I see the word "enemy" used exactly once in passing. I find such approaches misguided and potentially dangerous. It is focused on an environment of structured competition, not deadly conflict. Much more useful to look at the first chapter of Edward Luttwak's book Strategy.

  4. #24
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    18

    Default

    John T,
    copied, thanks. I don't believe our system (within MOD) is quite as 'stove piped' as it may appear. True, there are many areas where Civil Servants or Military Staff reside, but in key areas (i.e. current ops and Policy) they do share offices (especially since the building was rennovated into an open plan layout. Being a much smaller defence organization than yours also helps, and as staff reductions continue (a curent cut of 25%, yes 1 in 4, is underway), de facto people are having to broaden their remits. Outside of MOD, with notable exceptions (e.g. the Stabilization Unit in our Department for International Development (DfID - your USAID) the military are not plugged in to the machinery of government. In my view, this is one major reason why the military instrument is not a favoured tool of foreign policy; we don't have a string of ex-Gens in political office nor a history of them being Prime Ministers. Nor do we (yet - change pending) have an NSC. So the UK military is not postured or expected to shape national Strategy.

    I have a personal view on Strategy in the US system, having worked in DC with State, the DOD (both JS & OSD) and NSC, but I wouldn't go public on it!

    Paul

  5. #25
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rancho La Espada, Blanchard, OK
    Posts
    1,065

    Default Hi Paul, thanks for the update

    on what's happening in the UK system. Godd to see that our Brit cousins are eminently adaptable.

    Certainly, the US strategy system leave much to be desired. When it is done well, it is done very well; at other times it is horrid. NDU has published - both hardcopy and online - NSC 68 and its predecessors with an essay by Paul Nitze. It is a superb strategy in its NSC 4 iteration and was well executed for over 40 years. Congress did us a service in Goldwater-Nichols by reiquring the Executive Branch to publish its National Security Strategy. The requirement to do so each year has been honored in the breach beginning with the Clinton administration but it is still published often enough along with other strategy documents. The unintended consequence it that these documents for public consumption are often more PR than strategy but they usually contain enough so that the public and the bureaucracy understands where the Administration wants to go, how it plans to get there, and generally the resources it thinks it needs.

    I teach a course on National Security Policy in which I lay out the NSC decision-making system (including strategizing). Then, when I think my students believe that we have a fully rational system, I draw a diagram on the board of the Washington policy community above the line and the Field below the line. Then I draw in command and coordination lines. When I am done I have made a mess - which is the intent of the author of the exercise, Ambassador David Passage.

    Cheers

    JohnT

  6. #26
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Seems to be an attempt to treat the security realm like the business world. Just glancing at it, I see the word "enemy" used exactly once in passing. I find such approaches misguided and potentially dangerous. It is focused on an environment of structured competition, not deadly conflict. Much more useful to look at the first chapter of Edward Luttwak's book Strategy.
    Steve, are we reading the same document? In one short section enemy is mentioned 3 times plus from the article the diagram mentions subjects you bring up, can not tell for sure because the diagram is big black ink blot on my copy.

  7. #27
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Steve, are we reading the same document? In one short section enemy is mentioned 3 times plus from the article the diagram mentions subjects you bring up, can not tell for sure because the diagram is big black ink blot on my copy.

    When I search the document for "enemy," I find it listed three times. But in every instance it is treated as the equivalent of terrain--i.e. an environmental factor that must be considered.

    What I was trying to say is that in personal and business strategies, there is not an enemy whose objective it is to thwart you. Enemies (or competitors) are part of the operating environment. I think it is a terrible (but common) mistake on the part of Americans to overlook this absolutely crucial difference between security strategy and other types of strategic behavior. It's like the difference between running a road race (where you have competitors) and a football game where the opponent is deliberately acting to thwart you.

    In reality, security strategy involves both competitors and enemies. But we must not let ourselves believe that it is exactly like the business world where there is only competitors.
    Last edited by SteveMetz; 03-24-2008 at 12:47 PM.

  8. #28
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    In reality, security strategy involves both competitors and enemies. But we must not let ourselves believe that it is exactly like the business world where there is only competitors.
    I understand your point now.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •