RETHINKING STRATEGY: ART LYKKE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENDS, WAYS, MEANS MODEL OF STRATEGY A thesis presented to the FAculty of the U.S. Army CommAnd and General StAff College in partiAl fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE Art of WAr ScholArs by ANDREW C. WEBB, MAJOR, U.S.ARMY Bachelor of Arts, U.S. MilitAry AcAdemy, West Point, NY, 2006 Master of Arts, Johns Hopkins University SAIS, WAshington, DC, 2016 Fort LeAvenworth, KAnsAs 2019 Approved for public releAse; distribution is unlimited. FAir use determination or copyright permission has been obtAined for the inclusion of pictures, mAps, graphics, and any other works incorporated into this mAnuscript. A work of the United StAtes Government is not subject to copyright, however further publicAtion or sAle of copyrighted imAges is not permissible. REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 14-06-2019 MAster’s Thesis AUG 2018 – JUN 2019 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Rethinking Strategy: Art Lykke and the development of 5b. GRANT NUMBER Ends,WAys, MeAns Theory of Strategy 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER Andrew C. Webb 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORG REPORT U.S. Army CommAnd And GenerAl StAFF College NUMBER ATTN: ATZL-SWD-GD Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-2301 9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved For Public ReleAse; Distribution is Unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT The “Ends, Ways, Means” model is the U.S. military’s strategy model. Despite its prominence, there is little in the existing literature thAt explains the model’s origins, theoreticAl bAsis, or development by its author, Arthur F. Lykke, Jr. Using A historicAl evAluAtive ApproAch, I exAmine the development oF the “Ends, Ways, Means” model using Lykke’s Senate testimony, versions of his 1989 Military Review article, and the course reference text he edited at the U.S. Army War College. I place the model’s gradual acceptance in the context of the 1980s global security environment, changes within the U.S. Army, And the Weinberger Doctrine thAt estAblished conditions For the use oF militAry Force by the U.S. Secretary of Defense. I argue thAt Lykke’s “Ends, WAys, MeAns” model gAined acceptance in the U.S. Army not becAuse oF the soundness oF the model but instead as a result of Lykke’s incidental emergence as an expert, his control of the primary strategy course text at the U.S. Army WAr College, And becAuse of the speciFic circumstances of the 1980s. I conclude thAt the inherent flaws in “Ends, Ways, Means” make it a problematic model For the current and future strategy needs of the U.S. military. 15. SUBJECT TERMS Strategy, Arthur F. Lykke, Jr., Post-Vietnam, Grand Strategy 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE 19b. PHONE NUMBER (include area code) (U) (U) (U) (U) 108 StandaRd FoRm 298 (Rev. 8-98) PrescRibed bY ANSI Std. Z39.18 ii MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE THESIS APPROVAL PAGE Name of Candidate: Andrew C. Webb Thesis Title: Rethinking Strategy: Art Lykke and the development of the Ends, WAys, MeAns Model of Strategy Approved by: , Thesis Committee Chair Gates M. Brown, Ph.D. , Member Robert M. Brown, M.A. , Member SeAn N. Kalic, Ph.D. Accepted this 14th day of June 2019 by: , Director, Graduate Degree Programs Robert F. BaumAnn, Ph.D. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student author and do not necessArily represent the views of the U.S. Army CommAnd and General StAff College or Any other governmentAl agency. (References to this study should include the foregoing stAtement.) iii ABSTRACT RETHINKING STRATEGY: ART LYKKE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENDS, WAYS, MEANS MODEL OF STRATEGY, by Andrew C. Webb 108 pages. The “Ends, WAys, MeAns” model is the U.S. militAry’s strategy model. Despite its prominence, there is little in the existing literature that explAins the model’s origins, theoreticAl basis, or development by its author, Arthur F. Lykke, Jr. Using a historicAl evaluative Approach, I examine the development of the “Ends, WAys, MeAns” model using Lykke’s Senate testimony, versions of his 1989 Military Review Article, and the course reference text he edited at the U.S. Army WAr College. I plAce the model’s gradual AcceptAnce in the context of the 1980s global security environment, changes within the U.S. Army, and the Weinberger Doctrine that estAblished conditions for the use of militAry force by the U.S. SecretAry of Defense. I argue that Lykke’s “Ends, WAys, MeAns” model gained acceptAnce in the U.S. Army not becAuse of the soundness of the model but insteAd as a result of Lykke’s incidentAl emergence as an expert, his control of the primAry strategy course text at the U.S. Army WAr College, and becAuse of the specific circumstAnces of the 1980s. I conclude that the inherent flAws in “Ends, WAys, MeAns” mAke it a problemAtic model for the current and future strategy needs of the U.S. militAry. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis is the culmination of several yeArs of thought, writing and rewriting. I Asked the initiAl question while a student at Johns Hopkins’ SAIS. LAter, while teAching At the U.S. MilitAry AcAdemy, initiAl presentAtions to faculty reseArch seminars in the Department of SociAl Sciences and at the Modern WAr Institute demonstrated the need for further study. Feedback from a paper I wrote for the 2017 BienniAl Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society that contrasted “Ends, WAys, MeAns” with other strategy frameworks encouraged me to continue with the project. The pAper that now exists is a product of the opportunity afforded by being an Art of WAr ScholAr at the CommAnd and General StAff Officer’s Course at Fort LeAvenworth, KAnsAs. Dr. DeAn Nowowiejski secured funding for my reseArch and provided invaluable mentorship. My fellow scholArs also patiently humored my diAtribes, identified and pushed back on the mAny weAknesses of my argument, and yet alwAys encouraged me Along. Thanks to the efforts of Mr. Mike McVicAr, I presented a draft of Chapter 2 at the 2019 STRATCOM AcAdemic AlliAnce Workshop and received invaluable feedback from my panel chair, U.S. Army Colonel Barry Stentiford. My thesis committee set a high stAndard, resulting in a much better paper. While it remAins to be seen if this will be the “greAtest yeAr of my life,” I will remAin grateful for the opportunity to pursue this project while also fulfilling my other roles as soldier, scholAr, athlete, husband and dad. Of course, tAking on this project amidst a Ph.D., the challenges of leArning to be a Field Grade officer, and an impeding move to our 10th home in six yeArs would have been neither possible nor worth it without the support and love of my wife, Colleen, and our children Owen, Dory, GeorgiA and A fourth in utero, to be named lAter. v TABLE OF CONTENTS PAge MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE THESIS APPROVAL PAGE ............ iii ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................v TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... vi ILLUSTRATIONS .......................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER 1 STRATEGY: HOW TO THINK, HOW TO WIN ........................................1 ReseArch Purpose ............................................................................................................ 1 ReseArch Question .......................................................................................................... 3 Assumptions .................................................................................................................... 4 Definitions ...................................................................................................................... 5 Scope ............................................................................................................................... 8 LimitAtions of the Study ................................................................................................. 9 SignificAnce of the