The Trouble with Strategy: Bridging Policy and Operations

Abstract

No subject generates more concern within the military than strategy. Yet policymakers are often indifferent to it. Some find the demand for more and better strategy to be naive resistance to inevitable ad hocery. Why is the subject never settled enough to allow leaders to get on with other business? Why do senior officers insist on clear strategy more than do civilian officials? What Clausewitz said of friction in war applies to strategy: it "is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult." The trouble begins with the term strategy which is a buzzword that covers a multitude of sins. Many were content with a limited conception in earlier times planning and directing large-scale military operations. Clausewitz, however, injected politics when he defined strategy as "the use of an engagement for the purpose of the war." This wedge properly pushes the concept to higher levels. But some usages of the term become so broad that they are synonymous with foreign policy.

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
Jan 01, 2002
Accession Number
ADA403405

Entities

People

  • Richard K. Betts

Organizations

  • National Defense University

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • Counter WMD
  • Energy and Power Technologies
  • Human Systems

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Agreements
  • Air Force
  • Commerce
  • Engineering
  • Foreign Policy
  • Governments
  • Intergovernmental Organizations
  • International Organizations
  • Military Operations
  • Military Organizations
  • Military Strategy
  • National Security
  • New York
  • Second World War
  • Security
  • United States
  • War

Readers

  • Military History of the United States in the 20th Century.
  • Strategic Security Studies