Breakout Session I How Roosevelt is Used to Teach Grand Strategy Speaker: Jaimie Orr The National War College School of Practice… Teaching College… NWC Mission Educate future leaders of the Armed Forces, Department of State, and other civilian agencies for high-level policy, command and staff responsibilities by conducting a senior-level course of study in national security strategy. NWC Accreditation Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Middle States Commission on Higher Education Process for Accreditation of Joint Education (PAJE) – Master’s Degree – JPME II In The Beginning “The National War College is concerned with grand strategy and the utilization of resources necessary to implement that strategy. Its graduates will exercise a great influence on the formulation of national and foreign policy in both peace and war.” Lieutenant General Leonard T. Gerow, USA Report Recommending Creation of NWC, 1945 “Every aspect of the program is not only conducive to freedom of thought and uninhibited expression, but has also been intentionally planned to furnish a forum for the dissemination and evaluation of new ideas.” Vice Admiral Harry W. Hill “Opening address to first class” National War College, 3 Sep 1946 Around Half of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Omar Bradley Arthur Radford Nathan Lyman Lemnitzer Maxwell D. Taylor Earle Wheeler Thomas H. 1949-1953 1953-1957 Twining 1957- 1960-1962 1962-1964 1964-1970 Moorer 1970- 1960 1974 George S. Brown David C. Jones John William Vessey Jr. William J. Crowe Colin Powell David E. Jeremiah John 1974-1978 1978-1982 1982-1985 1985-1989 1989-1993 1993-1993 Shalikashvili 1993-1997 Hugh Shelton Richard Myers Peter Pace Michael Mullen Martin Dempsey Joseph Dunford 2015- 1997-2001 2001-2005 2005-2007 2007-2011 2011-2015 Present How Has NWC Contributed to National Strategy 1947 – NWC Vice-Commandant George Kennan develops the Containment Doctrine 1953 – President Eisenhower conducts Project SOLARIUM at NWC 1989 – NWC grad Colin Powell coins Powell Doctrine 1990 – NWC grad Brent Scowcroft coins New World Order vision as National Security Advisor 2001 – Former NWC professor Paul Wolfowitz is a key contributor to the Bush-43 Doctrine 2017 – NWC grad James Mattis lays out “Great Power Competition” National Defense Strategy NWC Educational Approach • Small group seminar – 13 students/1 faculty • Joint/Interagency/International • 2 Army; 2 Air Force; 2 Navy; 1 Marine/Coast Guard/1 State Department; 3 Other Civilian Agency; 2 International Fellows • Active Learning • Socratic discussion • Analysis of classical theory and emerging concepts • Development of analytical frameworks • Critique of selected historical cases • Assessment of selected strategic environments • Application of “scenario planning” methodology to envision alternate futures • Individual and group problem-solving exercises • Written/oral communication of analyses/problem solutions • “In the field” strategic analysis/assessment • “Contact hours” (i.e., in-classroom time) limited to 13/week • Rigorous assessment against well-defined performance outcomes NWC Class of 2020 Non-DOD Civilian 35 Army 43 DOD Civilian 21 Air Force Int’l 43 Fellows 33 Marines Navy 16 13 Coast Guard 2 Total = 206 Common Curriculum Required Additional American of all NWC Students Student Requirements 6000: Strategic Leader Foundation 6600: National Security Strategy 6210: Statecraft I: Historical Practicum (all US Students) Perspective Electives (US Students required 6310: Statecraft II: Modern Era to take 3) 6500: Global Context 6400: Domestic Context Additional International Student Requirements 6920: Applications in Strategy (all International Fellows) 6921: Individual Strategy Research Project (all International Fellows) 6047: American Studies I 6048: American Studies II What is Strategic Logic? • A method for thinking through complex strategic problems • 3D: Non-Linear & Non-Sequential • All elements influenced by assumptions Strategic leadership converts a strategy into success Strategic Logic – The Sources Analyze the Strategic Situation Analyze the Strategic Situation Define the Ends Define the Ends Determine the Means Formulate the Ways Assess the Risks/Costs Answers the question: “What is the condition we want to create?” • Linkage of National Interests & Ends • Political Aim • Specific Objectives Analyze the Strategic Situation Determine the Means Define the Ends Determine the Means Formulate the Ways Assess the Risks/Costs Answers the question: “What are the resources needed or available?” • Elements of Power • Institutions and Actors • Instruments of power • Interrelationship of Means • Employing/Developing Means Analyze the Strategic Situation Formulate the Ways Define the Ends Determine the Means Formulate the Ways Assess the Risks/Costs Answers the question: “How should resources be used?” • Fundamental Strategic Approaches WAYS • Modes of Action Modes of Action (examples) Fundamental Direct Indirect • Matching Institutions and Strategic Unilateral Multilateral Approaches Sequential Cumulative Actual Prospective Actors Observe Proactive Reactive Accommodate Overt Covert Strategic • Orchestration Shape Persuade Orchestration Concept Enable Instrument Prioritize Induce Specific & Sequence Coerce Institution Coordinate Subdue Balance Packages Objectives Integrate Subordinate Eradicate Strategies Strategic Logic—Assessments: Costs and Risks Answers the question: “Is this strategy viable?” WAYS • Risks to and from a strategy • Costs of strategy ENDS MEANS • Iterative (re)assessment and course COSTS corrections RISKS • Red-Teaming Evaluating Strategy – “ilities” Test • DESIRABLE: Interest of sufficient value; benefits worth the likely cost; success improves strategic position • SUITABLE: Aim serves interests; lines of effort will have Rumelt’s Kernel Test desired effects; orchestrated w/other strategies • Diagnosis • FEASIBLE: Sufficient means are available or attainable • Guiding Policy • SUSTAINABLE: Means available for the duration required to achieve success • Coherent Actions • ACCEPTABLE: Able to sustain public support; sufficiently consistent wi/international law and norms The Independent Strategy Research Project Analyzing Case Studies Using the Elements of Strategic Logic Roosevelt’s Grand Strategy • Strategic Context: • International Context • Global Context • U.S. National Interests • Threats or Opportunities to Interests • Strategic problem • Political Aim / Grand Strategic Objective • Supporting Objectives (ends) • Subordinate Objectives and Instruments (ways/means) Roosevelt’s Grand Strategy • Strategic Context: • USA had been focused on internal stability and continental expansion • Protected during this time by Royal Navy and European Powers’ involvement on European Continent • Technology now allows European powers greater ability to act in Western hemisphere • Continued prosperity of USA depends on further commercial expansion and broader security from external threats • U.S. National Interests: • Security from direct or indirect external attack • Prosperity of our nation and all its citizens • Protecting the American “way of life” and Values • Perceived Threats to those interests: • Expansion of European powers into Western hemisphere • Unchecked Rise of Japan and Russia in the Pacific Rim Roosevelt’s Grand Strategy • Strategic Problem: • Expansion of European Powers into the Caribbean and South America and the growth of Russia and Japan as military powers bordering the Pacific, present a continuing threat to American security, prosperity, and way of life. • Political Aim / Grand Strategic Objective: • Establish the United States as a global power with an increased sphere of influence and regional hegemony • Supporting Objectives: • Build a Navy capable of projecting US influence and protecting US national interests on a par with other great powers. • Establish a diplomatic leadership role for the United States among other great powers • Ensure continued US economic expansion • Establish and align executive power in relation to government and the private sector to ensure a just prosperity. Other Subordinate Objectives • Completion of canal linking Atlantic and Pacific Oceans • This subordinate objective advances supporting objectives 1 & 3 • Facilitate a mediated end to conflict between Russia and Japan • This subordinate objective advances subordinate objective 2 • Key: To have the seminar identify and evaluate other subordinate objectives that were undertaken in order to accomplish the political aim. Criteria for Evaluating the Elements of Strategic Logic in the Case Study • Was there a tight fit between the perceived threat and a national security interest? Was this articulated in a coherent and concise problem statement that guided the process in settling on a political aim? • Did the formulation of the problem statement take into account the target's (or opponent's) interests, perceived threats to those interests, motivations, and capabilities? • Did the political aim effectively address the threat to the national security interest? Criteria for Evaluating the Elements of Strategic Logic in the Case Study • Which instruments were used in the strategy? • Which institutions/actors wielded the instruments and why? For each subordinate objective, identify the means/ways package employed. • In this particular context, were the strengths and limitations of each instrument evident? What were they? • Was the selection and employment taken as a whole (ways) effective for the achievement of the subordinate objectives