Making Strategy Cognitive Lesson Objective: • Know the basic process of formulating a national strategy. Cognitive Samples of Behavior: • Define doctrine • State a primary reason a commander may be forced to depart from doctrine • State how a nation determines its national objectives • List in order the five steps in the strategy process • Identify external factors that influence the strategy process Affective Lesson Objective: • Respond to the impact the process of formulating a national strategy has on members of the US Armed Forces Affective Samples of Behavior: • Voluntarily discuss how the strategy process can be complicated by external factors • Voluntarily discuss the connection between battlefield strategy and the vital national interests we’ve sworn to protect 129 Making Strategy 129 MAKING STRATEGY: WHAT’S IT ALL ABOUT? For a nation to remain sovereign it must be able to achieve its objectives. Military forces are often asked to play an important role in accomplishing this, but they are not the only tools available and are almost never the first choice. Countries also rely on economic and diplomatic power to ensure their security. According to Sun Tzu, “To conquer the enemy without resorting to war is the most desirable. The highest form of generalship is to conquer the enemy by strategy”; as future Air Force leaders, it’s important that you understand the strategy process and the part you play in it. The Relationship Between Policy, Strategy, And Doctrine Policy, strategy, and doctrine are frequently used interchangeably when, in fact, they have different uses. Because each may impact or inform the others, it is important to understand their differences. Policy is guidance that is directive or instructive, stating what is to be accomplished. It reflects a conscious choice to pursue certain avenues and not others. Thus, while doctrine is held to be relatively enduring, policy is more mutable. Policies may change due to changes in national leadership, political considerations, or for fiscal reasons. At the national level, policy may be expressed in such broad vehicles as the National Security Strategy or Presidential Executive Orders. Within military operations, policy may be expressed not only in terms of objectives, but also in rules of engagement (ROE)—what we may or may not strike or under what circumstances we may strike particular targets. Strategy defines how operations should be conducted to accomplish national policy objectives. Strategy is the continuous process of matching ends, ways, and means to accomplish desired goals within acceptable levels of risk. Strategy originates in policy and addresses broad objectives, along with the designs and plans for achieving them. Doctrine is defined as the fundamental principles by which the military forces or elements thereof guide their actions in support of national objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgment in application. Doctrine presents considerations on how to accomplish military goals and objectives. It is a storehouse of analyzed experience and wisdom. Military doctrine is authoritative, but unlike policy, it is not directive. Strategy in Perspective The fundamental requirements of an effective national security strategy—clear and realistic objectives, coordinated use of the various instruments of national power, appropriately equipped and trained military forces, well-orchestrated military campaigns, and effective battlefield tactics—have hardly changed throughout recorded history. Nor have the fundamental functions of military strategists—developing, deploying, and orchestrating the effective employment of military forces—changed. Although the fundamental requirements remain the same, this is not to say that the process of making strategy is 130 as simple, easy, or straightforward today as it once may have been. Strategists struggle to overcome the problems involved in marshaling and using military forces to achieve a desired national objective while coping with a myriad outside influences, many of which are beyond anyone’s control. Compared to earlier eras, modern military forces are generally larger, more lethal, more functionally specialized, and organizationally complex. They are more difficult and expensive to train, equip, and support, particularly for operations in four very different domains—land, sea, air, and space—each of which presents strategists with unique opportunities and restraints. Moreover, the potential difficulties presented by a fifth operating environment, cyberspace, are just now becoming appreciated. The requirement to operate on a worldwide basis also creates difficult problems for several major powers. These and a host of other factors have vastly complicated the process of making strategy. The Strategy Process—An Overview “Strategy” is a word often wrapped in a mysterious aura. It is a word that conjures up visions of history’s great captains achieving victory against overwhelming odds through the application of their superior intellect and insights. Visions aside, the reality of strategy in its most fundamental sense is nothing more than a plan of action that organizes efforts to achieve an objective. Although this basic meaning of strategy is simple and clear-cut, our understanding has been hindered by the prolific application of the word “strategic.” This adjectival derivative of the same Greek root word connotes “great importance” or the “highest level.” The resulting confusion continues to this day even among those who should know better; military professionals often mistakenly associate strategy only with the highest levels of planning to achieve the highest level or most important national objectives. During the era of warrior kings, such as Frederick the Great and Napoleon, one man often made the decisions required to produce strategy. Warrior kings could grasp and decide issues ranging from the broadest political direction of the state to the most detailed battlefield tactics. They controlled a large vertical slice of their national command structure since they were at once absolute chiefs of state and battlefield commanders. Although the warrior kings of the past have given way, the complexity of the modern politico-military context virtually eliminates the possibility of one person having the ability to grasp all facets of a situation. The result is that even in the most tightly organized state, strategy is now made by different people or groups at different levels of authority, with often very different perspectives on what can or should be done. The broad and complex modern context within which strategists operate means that a simple definition of strategy, such as the one noted above, sheds little light on the factors that make strategy the most fundamental and most difficult of all military arts. In the modern era, it is much more accurate and descriptive to consider strategy as a complex decision-making process that connects the ends sought (national objectives) with the ways and means of achieving those ends. The modern strategy process (in both theory and successful practice) consists of at least five fundamental, interconnected, and 130 Making Strategy 131 sequential decisions that define and shape strategy at each level of authority. They range from broad and occasionally abstract decisions about long-term national objectives to very narrow and concrete decisions concerning battlefield tactics. Between those two extremes are three other crucial decisions that we will refer to as grand strategy, military strategy, and operational strategy. To fully comprehend this decision-making process, one must view it on two levels. The first level focuses on the macrocosm of national strategy, that is, very broad and long-term issues which transcend current events. For example, usually a state’s most fundamental objective is to preserve its sovereignty. To do so and to achieve other fundamental long-term national objectives, the decisions in the strategy process must be effectively addressed. On the second or microcosm level, the process concerns time-sensitive contingencies. The same basic decisions must be effectively addressed to meet such contingencies but are generally addressed much more urgently. With that in mind we will examine each of the five fundamental steps in the strategy process: determining national security objectives, formulating grand national strategy, developing military strategy, composing operational strategy, and formulating battlefield strategy. Historical National Security Objectives Strategists’ first task is to define the national security objectives that form the foundation of the strategy process. If the objectives are ill-defined, inconsistent, or unsupported by some degree of national consensus, then the strategists’ function becomes exceedingly difficult. American objectives in World War II provide an excellent example of well-defined, consistent, and widely supported objectives. The United States and its allies sought the surrender of the Axis powers, explicitly total and unconditional surrender. Such an unambiguous objective formed a solid foundation on which to base strategy decisions. In the post–World War II years, the advent of nuclear weapons, the Cold War standoff, and the fear of a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union meant the United States found it risky to pursue objectives like unconditional surrender in any conflict involving the Soviets, even indirectly. During the Cold War the broad national security objectives of the United States were clear.