Defining Military Strategy PDF

Military Strategy Colonel Arthur F. Lykke Jr., US Army, Retired Colonel Arthur F. Lykke Jr.’s pragmatic definition of military strategy is as current today as it was when his article led the May 1989 issue of Military Review. Lykke’s model remains the basis for mili...

Military Strategy Colonel Arthur F. Lykke Jr., US Army, Retired Colonel Arthur F. Lykke Jr.’s pragmatic definition of military strategy is as current today as it was when his article led the May 1989 issue of Military Review. Lykke’s model remains the basis for military strategy instruction at the US Army War College. Interestingly, our records show that Military Review rejected this same article in March 1981. According to Lykke, the editors felt an article on strategy would be inappropriate for students at the Army’s senior tactical school. W HAT IS MILITARY STRATEGY? In ancient Greece, it was the “art of the gen- eral.” In its glossary of military terms, the US Army War express this concept as an equation: Strategy equals ends (objectives toward which one strives) plus ways (courses of action) plus means (instruments by which College lists eight definitions of military strategy. This some end can be achieved). This general concept can highlights the first of many problems in the study of this be used as a basis for the formulation of any type strate- important but complex subject. There is no universal gy-military, political, economic and so forth, depending definition or even the approximation of a consensus. upon the element of national power employed. Today the term “strategy” is used altogether too loosely. We should not confuse military strategy with national Some call a line drawn on a map a strategy. Others (grand) strategy, which may be defined as: “The art and believe a laundry list of national objectives represents science of developing and using the political, economic a strategy. The problem is not just semantics; it is one and psychological powers of a nation, together with its of effectively and competently using one of the most armed forces, during peace and war, to secure national essential tools of the military profession. In trying to objectives.”2 decide between alternative strategies, we are often faced Military strategy is [only] one part of this all-encom- with a comparison of apples and oranges, because the passing national strategy. The military component of our choices do not address the same factors. Only with national strategy is sometimes referred to as national a mutual understanding of what comprises military military strategy-military strategy at its higher level strategy can we hope to improve our strategic dialogue. and differentiated from operational strategies used as There needs to be general agreement on a conceptual the basis for military planning and operations. Military approach to military strategy: a definition, a description strategy must support national strategy and comply with of the basic elements that make up military strategy and national policy, which is defined as “a broad course an analysis of how they are related. For the purpose of of action or statements of guidance adopted by the this discussion, we will use the definition approved by government at the national level in pursuit of national the US Joint Chiefs of Staff: “The art and science of objectives.”3 In turn, national policy is influenced by employing the armed forces of a nation to secure the the capabilities and limitations of military strategy. objectives of national policy by the application of force With our general concept of strategy as a guide-strat- or the threat of force.”1 egy equals ends plus ways plus means-we can develop During a visit to the US Army War College in 1981, an approach to military strategy. Ends can be expressed General Maxwell D. Taylor characterized strategy as military objectives. Ways are concerned with the var- as consisting of objectives, ways and means. We can ious methods of applying military force. In essence, this MILITARY REVIEW January-February 1997 183 becomes an examination of courses of action designed requirements and are therefore not as constrained by to achieve the military objective. These courses of current force posture. These longer-range strategies are action are termed “military strategic concepts.” Means more often global in nature and may require improve- refers to the military resources (manpower, materiel, ments in military capabilities. Military strategies can money, forces, logistics and so forth) required to be regional as well as global, concerning themselves accomplish the mission. This leads us to the conclusion with specific threat scenarios. that military strategy equals military objectives plus Military objectives and military strategic concepts of military strategic concepts plus military resources. a military strategy establish requirements for resources This conceptual approach is applicable to all three and are, in turn, influenced by the availability of resources. If we fail to consider military resources as National (grand) strategy, … may be an element of military strategy, we may be faced with defined as: “The art and science of devel- what has come to be called a strategy-capabilities mis- oping and using the political, economic and match; in other words, inadequate military capabilities psychological powers of a nation, together to implement the strategic concepts and to accomplish with its armed forces, during peace and the objectives of a military strategy. This is the usual war, to secure national objectives.” … Mili- case when we are developing a long-range strategy tary strategy must support national strategy requiring improved military force structure capabilities. and comply with national policy, which However, it may be disastrous if we are concerned with is defined as “a broad course of action an operational strategy upon which contingency plans or statements of guidance adopted by the and military operations will be based. That is why government at the national level in pursuit operational strategies must be based on capabilities. of national objectives.” In turn, national Let us zero in on the first basic element of any mil- policy is influenced by the capabilities and itary strategy—a military objective. It can be defined limitations of military strategy. as a specific mission or task to which military efforts and resources are applied. Several examples come to levels of war: strategic, operational and tactical. It also mind: deter aggression, protect lines of communication, reveals the fundamental similarities among national defend the homeland, restore lost territory and defeat an military strategy, operational art and tactics. Strategists, opponent. The objectives should be military in nature. planners, corps commanders and squad leaders are all While Clausewitz, V.I. Lenin and Mao Tse-tung have concerned with ways to employ means to achieve ends. all emphasized the integral relationship of war and poli- Some readers may question this idea, thinking that tics, military forces must be given appropriate missions while military resources are necessary to support a within their capabilities. B.H. Liddell Hart stresses that: strategy, they are not a component of that strategy. “In discussing the subject of `the objective’ in war it They would limit military strategy to a consideration is essential to be clear about and to keep clear in our of military objectives and military strategic concepts. minds, the distinction between the political and military However, in discussing the importance of superiority objective. The two are different but not separate. For of numbers, Carl von Clausewitz stated that the deci- nations do not wage war for war’s sake, but in pursuance sion on the size of military forces “is indeed a vital of policy. The military objective is only the means to part of strategy.”4 And Bernard Brodie points out that a political end. Hence the military objective should “Strategy in peacetime is expressed largely in choices be governed by the political objective, subject to the among weapons systems…”5 By considering military basic condition that policy does not demand what is resources as a basic element of military strategy, we militarily—that is, practically—impossible.”6 may also alleviate the problem of disregarding the In our definition of military strategy, the ultimate importance of military objectives and strategic concepts objectives are those of national policy. Sometimes while concentrating mainly on force structure issues. policy guidance is difficult to find, unclear or ambig- There are two levels of military strategy: operational uous. National policy also concerns itself with all the and force development. Strategies based on existing basic elements of national power: political, economic, military capabilities are operational strategies-those that socio-psychological and military. To make things even are used as a foundation for the formulation of specific more interesting, national policies in these various fields plans for action in the short-range time period. This level are often overlapping and may even be contradictory. of strategy has also been referred to as higher, or grand, There are seldom “purely military” or “purely politi- tactics and operational art. Longer-range strategies may cal” objectives. National leaders may choose to use the be based on estimates of future threats, objectives and military element of power in pursuit of national policy 184 January-February 1997 MILITARY REVIEW  STRATEGY objectives that are primarily political or economic in determine if there is risk associated with a strategy, nature. This can cause problems. Sometimes military assess the degree of risk and bring it clearly and force is not the appropriate tool. Military commanders forcefully to the attention of civilian leaders. may then have difficulty deriving feasible military Let us test our model with an example to see if it objectives from the objectives of national policy. is useful in explaining military strategy. The Carter Now let us examine a military strategic concept. Doctrine was a statement of national policy: “Let our It can be defined as “the course of action accepted as position be absolutely clear. An attempt by any outside the result of the estimate of the strategic situation.”7 force to gain control of the Persian Gulf Region will be Military strategic concepts may combine a wide regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United range of options, such as forward defense (forward basing and/or forward deployment), strategic reserves, “In discussing the subject of `the objective’ reinforcements, show of force, pre-positioned stocks, in war it is essential to be clear about and collective security and security assistance. These are a to keep clear in our minds, the distinction few of the ways military forces can be used either uni- between the political and military objective. laterally or in concert with allies. The determination of The two are different but not separate. For strategic concepts is of major importance. However, nations do not wage war for war’s sake, do not make the mistake of calling a strategic concept but in pursuance of policy. The military a strategy. Strategic concepts must always be consid- objective is only the means to a political ered in relation to military objectives and resources. end. Hence the military objective should be Finally, we should study the means portion of our governed by the political objective, subject military strategy equation—the military resources to the basic condition that policy does not that determine capabilities. These may include con- demand what is militarily—that is, practi- ventional and unconventional general purpose forces, cally—impossible.” strategic and tactical nuclear forces, defensive and offensive forces, Active and Reserve forces, war materiel and weapon systems, as well as manpower. States of America. Such an assault will be repelled by We should also take into consideration the roles any means necessary including military force.” and potential contributions of our allies and friends. We must devise a military strategy to carry out this The Total Force package must be well-rounded with policy. One implied objective is securing access to our combat, combat support and combat service support Persian Gulf oil supplies. We should first translate this elements adequately equipped and sustained. Depend- economic/political objective into military objectives, ing on the type of strategy we are developing, the such as maintaining freedom of passage through the forces we consider using may or may not currently Strait of Hormuz and defending key oil fields, refineries exist. In short-range operational strategies, the forces and ports. The strategic concept might be by means of must exist. In longer-range force developmental a rapid deployment force from our strategic reserves. strategies, the strategic concepts determine the type But, do we have sufficient strategic mobility and of forces that should exist and the way they are to be power projection capabilities in being today to keep the employed. Now that we have looked at the basic elements of military strategy, let us try to put them together in some meaningful way. The figure shows one possi- Natio ble model. National security, our most vital interest, n is supported on a three-legged stool titled “Military Secu al Strategy.” The three legs of the stool are labeled M il rity i tary “Objectives,” “Concepts” and “Resources.” This St ra t e g y ives simple analogy leads one to the observation that the legs must be balanced or national security may be in Conce Object jeopardy. If military resources are not compatible with Resources strategic concepts, or commitments are not matched pts by military capabilities, we may be in trouble. The Risk angle of tilt represents risk, further defined as the possibility of loss, or damage, or of not achieving an objective. It is, of course, the duty of the military to MILITARY REVIEW January-February 1997 185  egies” over the years have been: attrition, annihilation, One should remember that under ideal cir- countervalue, counterforce, warfighting, direct and cumstances, military objectives and strate- indirect approach, search and destroy, oil spot, assured gic concepts determine force structure and destruction, containment and countervailing. worldwide deployments of military forces. One should remember that under ideal circum- However, military objectives and strategic stances, military objectives and strategic concepts concepts are necessarily affected by the determine force structure and worldwide deployments capabilities and limitations of the military of military forces. However, military objectives and forces in being. strategic concepts are necessarily affected by the capa- bilities and limitations of the military forces in being. stool level? Which leg needs to be adjusted? Military Military strategy may be declaratory or actual. In resources? To program and produce the required airlift other words, as stated by our leaders, it may or may not and sealift forces may take years. In order to have a be our real strategy. US military strategy has seldom feasible short-range operational strategy, it may be been clearly expressed and infrequently described in wiser to change the strategic concept to that of forward sufficient detail for all to understand. Some say that defense and station or deploy more US military force it is unwise, impossible or even dangerous to openly in the region. enunciate a military strategy. This very act may limit Perhaps we have examined the subject of military our options in a crisis situation or tip off our potential strategy in sufficient depth to arrive at some initial adversaries on what our actions might be. conclusions regarding its nature. First, it is not the A nation may need more than one military strategy title of a strategy that is important; it is the content at a time. For instance, if a nation has only a deterrent that counts. The names are often changed for cosmetic strategy and deterrence fails, what does the nation do reasons, reflecting little substantive alteration. A study then? Surrender? Submit to piecemeal attacks and of history shows that military strategies have been incremental losses? Unleash a massive strategic nuclear identified by a wide variety of labels. The “Massive attack? These are some of the options, if it does not Retaliation” of the Eisenhower administration, the also have a warfighting strategy. Military strategy can “Flexible Response” of the Kennedy administration change rapidly and frequently, since objectives can and the more recent “Realistic Deterrence” have all change in an instant. However, it takes much longer to been referred to as strategies. We had the “2 1/2-war alter the military forces so that they may be responsive strategy” of the Johnson administration changing to a to new objectives and concepts. “l 1/2-war strategy” following the Sino-Soviet split, and In summary, military strategy consists of the estab- the realization that buying a military force in time of lishment of military objectives, the formulation of mili- peace that could fight 2 1/2 wars simultaneously was just tary strategic concepts to accomplish the objectives and too costly. These latter examples of strategic statements the use of military resources to implement the concepts. describe procurement guidelines for a force structure When any of these basic elements is incompatible with rather than military strategies. Other names for “strat- the others, our national security may be in danger. MR NOTES 1. Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Publication 1, Department of Defense Dictionary (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), 196. of Military and Associated Terms (Washington, DC: US Government Printing 5. Bernard Brodie, Strategy in the Missile Age (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Office, 1 June 1987), 232. Press, 1965), 361. 2. Ibid., 244. 6. B.H. Liddell Hart, Strategy (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1975), 351. 3. Ibid. 7. JCS Pub. 1, 349. 4. Carl von Clausewitz, On War, ed. and trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret, Colonel Arthur F. Lykke Jr., US Army, Retired, has been a professor of military strategy at the US Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, since 1976. While on active duty, he served on the Army General Staff and as a field artillery battalion commander in Vietnam and Cambodia. 186 January-February 1997 MILITARY REVIEW