Strategy and change over time

[William F. Owen]

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. Wilf's last post indicates to me that he will disagree for he holds yet a third position on the definition of strategy.

I think have to understand that "Strategy" is something different from "the Strategy." "The Strategy" may make, no "Strategic" sense. EG: We are in A'Stan to deny Al Qeda a base, when Al Qeda could plan another 911, from cells living in Canada.

The Military is a tool used to achieve the desired Strategic outcome. How that is done is "the military contribution to strategy" or "military strategy."

I don't really have a definition of Strategy because it is entirely irrelevant, to the "the strategy."

Doctrine is what is taught. Sorry to repeat this, but just in case, Doctrine is what is taught. - so yeas, logically doctrine is a tool, and it can enable the contribution to strategy. So doctrines can be something other than military, and nothing to do with strategy. Basically gardening is not about the tools, yet what tools you have, in some way defines how your garden will look.

[Bob's World]

I think have to understand that "Strategy" is something different from "the Strategy." "The Strategy" may make, no "Strategic" sense. EG: We are in A'Stan to deny Al Qeda a base, when Al Qeda could plan another 911, from cells living in Canada.

The Military is a tool used to achieve the desired Strategic outcome. How that is done is "the military contribution to strategy" or "military strategy."

I don't really have a definition of Strategy because it is entirely irrelevant, to the "the strategy."

Doctrine is what is taught. Sorry to repeat this, but just in case, Doctrine is what is taught. - so yeas, logically doctrine is a tool, and it can enable the contribution to strategy. So doctrines can be something other than military, and nothing to do with strategy. Basically gardening is not about the tools, yet what tools you have, in some way defines how your garden will look.

All of this is very true, and it goes to our initial challenge at USSOCOM when we were tasked to stand up a Strategy Division. While US SOF forces are employed globally, USSOCOM itself is primarily a Title-10, Service-like force provider with an additional recent task to write GWOT plans for the Joint Staff and to synchronize those plans with the GCCs. So the first question becomes: "Strategy to do what?"

So you have to bin these things out. Yes we need a strategy for what the force needs to look like. We also need a "strategy" for how we will implement the Synch mission. As to the strategy for the plans themselves, that was provided from the very top and was sacrosanct. It could not be challenged, or when challenged, the challenger was quickly shot down. It was, as WILF says, a product of policy and politics, and not a product allowed to be shaped in any way by those at USSOCOM who had the greatest knowledge of the problem set we were taking on and who had been tasked to essentially set that knowledge aside and merely scribe out a plan. Frustrating business, that.

So what do we do today to attempt to break this cycle, while still remaining in our lane? Essentially we practice what I call "Staff UW."

We identifiy critical nodes, networks and individuals within the policy strategy community and engage them directly and indirectly, creating trust and rapport, and building a network of influence within the commuity. Behind the scenes we drill down into the problem set going far beyond our assigned lane of SOCOM's mission, to seek the greatest possible understanding of the problems we face around the world, their root causes (often linked frighteningly directly to former and current policies and strategies), and develop concepts for how to best address the same. We then use our staff UW network to peddle these concepts, not because of some formal authority to do so, but because the fact is, the people who do craft strategy and policy are for the most part good people, who want to do the right thing, and often simply don't have the background in the specific problem set they are tasked to address; and when approached properly they listen.

Do they have to listen? No. Do they agree with everything one says? No. Is everything they develope shaped by current politics? Absolutely. But often they take key concepts and fold them into their own. The seeds of strategy are being planted and they are growing, and it is shaping the national policy / strategy environment.

Ken worries that I am beating my head on a rock. Don't worry Ken, I'll always be an unconventional SF guy at heart, and rocks are something one goes around...

[slapout9]

I think have to understand that "Strategy" is something different from "the Strategy." "The Strategy" may make, no "Strategic" sense. EG: We are in A'Stan to deny Al Qeda a base, when Al Qeda could plan another 911, from cells living in Canada.

And the "whole thing" comes apart, you have lost the moment you have started.