In the shadowed corridors of the Pentagon, the density of strategists per square foot might surpass anywhere else on the globe. These officers and civilian counterparts are well-schooled in the art of strategy, yet a review of the last two decades raises the question: is the United States truly benefiting from its investment in strategic education?
From the costly engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq to the strategic missteps in Libya and the enduring challenges posed by Russia, the evidence seems to suggest a disconnect between the extensive training in strategic thought and the effectiveness of the strategies employed. This discrepancy points to a deeper issue: the complex, multi-dimensional challenges of the modern era seem to require a strategic paradigm shift rather than the traditionally linear approach to warfare and national security policy.
The linear approach, historically characterized by the overwhelming application of force and firepower, has been the United States’ default playbook. However, this strategy has proven less effective against non-traditional threats and in complex political environments. The United States’ inability to fully deter Russian aggression or decisively influence the outcome of civil wars in the Middle East has brought this issue into sharp relief.
This challenge is underscored by the belief, as one recent Air Force memo suggests, that relying on gut instincts is a viable strategy. This reveals a potentially dangerous culture within the national security establishment that prioritizes a can-do attitude over a sober assessment of facts. As the authors of one of the reference articles, both members of the National Intelligence University, note, this often leads to a militarization of problems that might not have military solutions.
The world of strategic challenges is hyper-connected, and strategists must be equipped with a fundamentally different set of skills. Strategic foresight, an understanding of complex systems, and the ability to leverage artificial intelligence platforms are now essential. Furthermore, cultivating a tolerance for uncertainty can reduce judgmental bias and encourage non-linear thinking. It’s this kind of intellectual agility that may provide a competitive advantage in navigating today’s security landscape.
While strategy books like “Good Strategy / Bad Strategy” by Richard P. Rumelt offer granular frameworks for distinguishing good strategic practice from bad, they highlight a critical issue: strategy must be coherent and mutually reinforcing. It is not enough to list objectives; they must support one another, focus efforts, and be based on a thorough understanding of the unique challenges at hand.
Relevant articles:
– A Surplus of Strategists—But A Lack of Good Strategy, The National Interest
– Bad Strategy” by Jeff Zych, jlzych.com
– Leaders should focus on strategists, not strategy (opinion), Inside Higher Ed
– Have you tested your strategy lately?, McKinsey & Company