Descriptions and Definitions of Strategy
Collected by Lt Col Dave Lyle, USAF
In military strategy, to paraphrase Clausewitz, everything is simple, but the simplest thing is difficult – and that extends to its definition.
– William O. Staidenmaier, “Strategic Concepts for the 1980s: Part I” in Foundations of Force Planning: Concepts and Issues 81
Historical Definitions of Strategy
Paul Gideon Joly de Maizeroy Theory de la guerre (1777):
La strategique is thus properly said to be the art of the commander, to wield and employ appropriately and with adroitness all the means of the general in his hand, to move all the parts that are subordinate to him, and to apply them successfully. Cited in Lawrence Freedman, Strategy: A History, 73.
Strategy is sublime, involving reason more than rules. Cited in Lawrence Freedman, Strategy : A History 73.
Making war is a matter of reflection, combination of ideas, foresight, reasoning in depth and use of available means…In order to formulate plans, strategy studies the relationship between time, positions, means and different interests, and takes every factor into account…which is the province of dialectics, that is to say, of reasoning, which is the highest faculty of mind.” Quoted in Strachan the Direction of War 28, Cited in Lawrence Freedman, Strategy: A History, 73.
Garcia Figueroa de Silva (1780s)
Strategy is the science of the general and deals with campaign plans and uses tactics to achieve their objectives; tactics deals with formations, battlefield maneuvers, and the three arms [infantry, cavalry, artillery]. Cited in Milan Vego Operational Warfare: Theory and Practice, I-37.
Heinrich Von Bulow Practical Guide to Strategy (1805)
Strategy is a science to conduct military operations beyond the eyesight and the firing range of artillery, while tactics is a science to conduct military operations within these limits. Quoted in The Science of Military Strategy 7
Strategy is the science of movement aimed at the enemy, while the exchange of blows is tactics. Summarized by Milan Vego in Operational Warfare: Theory and Practice, I-37.
Archduke Charles (1814)
Strategy is the science of war. It sketches plans, it includes and determines the course of military enterprise; it is, properly speaking, the science of the generals in chief.” Quoted in Castex 4 from probably Principles of Strategy, check Gat Origins
Charles considered strategy a military science and tactics a military art. In his view, the supreme commander should determine the course of military undertakings; art had only to execute the strategic projects. Milan Vego Operational Warfare: Theory and Practice, I-37.
Carl Von Clausewitz from On War (1832)
Strategy [is] the use of engagements for the object of the war. ” 177
There exist two absolutely distinct activities: tactics and strategy. The first orders and directs the action of combats while the second relates the combats to one another in order to arrive at the objects of war. 128
It must, therefore, give an aim to the whole military action, which must be in accordance with the object of the war; in other words, strategy forms the plan of the war, and, to this end, it links together a series of acts which are to lead to the final decision; that is to say, it makes the plans for the separate campaigns and regulates the combats to be fought in each.” Quoted in Robinson, 1
“In strategy there is no victory. On the one hand the strategic success is the successful preparation of the tactical victory. On the other hand, strategic success lies in making use of the victory gained. By the strategic plan is settled when, where, and with what forces a battle is to be delivered.” (quoted in 1923 Hamley 420 [Strategy fixes the point where, the time when, and the numerical force with which the battle is to be fought – Fieberger trans 6]
Strategic elements: “moral, physical, mathematical, geographical, and statistical.” “A brief consideration of each of these various types will clarify our ideas, and in passing, assess the relative value of each. Indeed, if they are studied separately some will automatically be stripped of any undue importance…It would however be disastrous to try to develop our understanding of strategy by analyzing these factors in isolation, since they are usually interconnected in each military action in manifold and intricate ways. 183
Antoine De Jomini The Art of War (1837)
Strategy is the art of making war upon the map, and comprehends the whole theater of war. Grand Tactics is the art of posting troops upon the battle-field according to the accidents of the ground, of bringing them into action, and the art of fighting upon the ground, in contradiction to planning upon a map. Its operations may extend over a field of ten or twelve miles in extent. Logistics comprises the means and arrangements which work out the plans of strategy and tactics. Strategy decides where to act; logistics brings the troops to this point; grand tactics decides the manner of execution and the employment of the troops. 51
For Jomini, strategy encompasses the selection of the theater of war and the discussion of different combinations; the determination of the decisive points in these combinations and the most favorable direction for operations; the selection of the fixed base and the zone of operations; the selection of the offensive and defensive objective points, the strategic fronts, lines of defense, and fronts of operations; and the choice of lines of operations leading to the objective point or strategic front. The Art of war consists of five principle parts: strategy, grand tactics, logistics, tactics of the different arms, and art of the engineer. Summarized by Milan Vego Operational Warfare: Theory and Practice, I-37.
Wilhelm von Willisen (1840)
Strategy is the doctrine of making connections…the doctrine of battling is tactics. Cited in Heuser, The Evolution of Strategy, 7.
Marshall Marmont (1845)
The general movements which are made beyond the enemy’s range of sight and before the battle. Tactics is the science of the application of maneuvers. Heuser The Evolution of Strategy 6
Henry Halleck Elements of Military Art and Science 1846
Strategy is defined as the art of directing masses on decisive points, or the hostile movements of armies beyond the range of each other’s cannon.
Louis-Edouard, Count Bouët-Willaumez (1853)
The art of determining the decisive points of the theater of war and the general lines and routes along which armies have to move to get there. Cited in Heuser, The Evolution of Strategy, 7.
Sir Edward Hamley The Operations of War (1866)
The Theater of War is the province of Strategy – the Field of Battle is the province of Tactics. All operations must ultimately rely for success upon power of fighting; for it is of no avail to conduct an army into situations which it cannot maintain battle. It is the object of Strategy so to direct the movements of an army, that when decisive collisions occur it shall encounter the enemy with increased relative advantage.” The Operations of War 1866 pg 55, same text in 1923 edition 65
In short, strategy must be ever striving for tactical success; tactics must ever keep the strategical situation in mind, and must constantly aim at creating fresh strategical opportunities. Tactics without strategy resembles a man with no legs. Strategy without tactics is like a man without arms. 420 1923 ed.
Von Moltke the Elder (1897)
“A system of expedients as the practical adaptation of the means at a general’s disposal to attain the object in view.” Milan Vego Operational Warfare: Theory and Practice, I-38. (Heuser notes that he felt these expedients defied general principles that could be taught: The Evolution of Strategy, 7.)
The task of strategy is the preparation of armed forces, the first deployment of an army, and then its combat employment. Therefore, strategy creates the prerequisites for tactics. Strategy has the means that tactics use at the right time and the right place. The strategic decision determines the decision for combat. The movement of the army for the planned major battle is a matter of strategy, while the form of its execution is a matter of tactics Summary by Milan Vego Operational Warfare: Theory and Practice, I-37.
The essence of strategy is the preparations needed to get the troops to the battlefield simultaneously. Cited in Heuser, The Evolution of Strategy, 7.
H.G.Fix Fix’s Manual of Strategy (1889)
Strategy, which is properly speaking the science of the commander-in-chief, conceives and forms the plan of operations of a war, grasps their entirety and informs their progress…Strategy is the art of making war upon the map; Tactics, upon the ground. 18
The strategical part of the campaign, comprises, before the breaking out of hostilities: 1. The general sketch of the plan of campaign; which embraces in continuation: 2. The concentration of the army charged with executing the operations; 3. The complete realization of the plan of operations, the modifications it may be necessary to introduce, or its entire change, 4. The direction to be indicated to the different fractions in order that they may arrive at the places of action, 5. The fighting of engagements or battles, and the co-ordination of the results obtained until the final object of the war be achieved. 18
Names three strategic points: geographical, political, and eventual, or strategic points of maneuver that only acquire value relative to the positions of the two belligerents 22
Describes strategic lines, natural (terrain) and artificial (logistical/communications) that create a series of squares, a strategic chessboard 36-37.
A.T. Mahan – The Influence of Seapower Upon History (1890)
The definitions of strategy, as usually given, confine the applications of the word to military combinations, which embrace one or more fields of operations, either wholly distinct or mutually dependent, but always regarded as actual or immediate scenes of war. However this may be on shore, a French writer is unquestionably right in pointing out that such definition is too narrow for naval strategy. “This”, he says, “ differs from military strategy, in that it is as necessary in peace as in war. Indeed, in peace it may gain its most decisive victories by occupying in a country, either by purchase or treaty, excellent positions which would perhaps hardly be got in war. The Art of War in World History 789
General Bonnal (1892-93) “Strategy is the art of conception, tactics the science of execution.” Quoted in Castex, 7
John Bigelow The Principles of Strategy Illustrated Mainly from American Campaigns (1894)
Tactics is the art of conducting war in the presence of the enemy; strategy, the art of conducting it beyond his presence. 17
Admiral Giovanni Sechi “The conduct of maritime war belongs to maritime strategy, the execution of strategic conceptions falls into the relam of logistics when one is not in the presence of the enemy and tactics when the cannons thunder…Thus we can say that strategy is the mind that thinks, logistics and tactics the arms that act.’ Quoted in Castex, 8
Corticelli (1900)
Strategy is not simply a part of military science but rather its synthesis (authors note cited by Castex 9)
Jean-Francois-Georges Gilbert (died 1901)
[Strategy is] “the art of moving forces in the theater of operations in order to concentrate them on the battlefield while tactics is the art of concentrating forces at the decisive point on the battlefield itself. “Quoted in Castex 6
G.F.R. Henderson The Science of War (1902)
Strategy is the art of bringing the enemy to battle.” 70
Strategy, according to the official text-book of the British infantry, is the art of bringing the enemy to battle, while tactics are the methods by which a commander seeks to overwhelm him when battle is joined. It will thus be seen that strategy leads up to the actual fighting – that is, to the tactical decision: but that while the two armies are seeking to destroy one another it remains in abeyance, to spring once more into operation as soon as the issue is decided. It will also be observed that the end of strategy is the pitched battle; and it is hardly necessary to point out that the encounter at which the strategist aims is one which every possible advantage of numbers, ground, supplies, and moral should be secured to himself, and which shall end in his enemy’s annihilation. 39. [Lists two great principles as defined by Jackson – surprise, mislead, and mystify the enemy, and never give up pursuit 42 Close to a common definition with Hamley and Maurice as well, as analyzed in Heuser, The Evolution of Strategy, 7.
Walter H. James Modern Strategy (1904)
Strategy deals with the military considerations which determine the choice of the offensive or defensive, the selection of the country in which to fight, the objects against which the armies should be directed, and embraces the Plan of Campaign or General Idea which dominates the conduct of operations. Broadly speaking, therefore, strategy is concerned with the movement of troops before they come into actual collision, while tactics deals with the leading of troops in battle, or when battle is immanent. Tactical victory may be the prelude to strategic success, or it may be the culmination of successful strategy. In the latter case the aim of strategy has been gained for the time being, in the former it is attained by placing the victor in such a position before the battle as will enable him to gain the greatest effect possible from his tactical success when won. 18
Tactics and strategy are interdependent; together they form the complete art of war. For tactical success is necessary to set the final crown on successful strategy, and no great result is gained by winning a battle unless it comes as the final act of well-planned operations. Examples have occurred in war where a general has, by a lucky battle, extricated himself from a bad strategical position, but history proclaims with no uncertain sound that false strategy, followed by tactical defeat, means crushing disaster to the beaten side. ix
Strategy is largely affected by moral considerations. Of two different courses – one of which might give important political, the other more purely military results – it will sometimes be more advantageous to choose the former, because of the greater effect it will have on the course of the war. The object of war is peace on the victor’s terms. 17
Colman Von Der Goltz (approx..1906)
One defines strategy as the theory according to which one conducts and directs armies, tactics as how one conducts and directs armies.” Tactics dealt with directing troops on the battlefield. Milan Vego Operational Warfare: Theory and Practice, I-38.
Friedrich Adam von Bernhardi (1911)
The art of directing armies in the theater of war. Tactics are the art of conducting a unit on the ground. Milan Vego Operational Warfare: Theory and Practice, I-39.
Strategy is the art of leading troops to combat in the decisive direction and in the most favorable conditions.” Quoted in Castex 6
Julian Corbett Some Principles of Maritime Strategy (1911)
Strategy is the art of directing force to the end in view. Classified by the object is Major Strategy, dealing with ulterior objects; Minor Strategy, with primary objects. The Art of War in World History 831
"Strategy indicates the best way to conduct battle; it dictates where and when one ought to fight. Tactics teaches how to make use of the different arms of combat; it says how one ought to fight. Quoted in Castex 5
General Mordacq (1912)
Strategy is the art of directing armies in the theater of war and tactics the art of conducting a unit on the ground. Quoted in Castex 6
Captain de Vaisseau Darrieus (1907) – “Strategy evokes the idea of preparation for which the end is battle, and tactics the execution of battle. “ Quoted in Castex 6-7
Captain Laurent – “One means by strategy everything that addresses the conception and general conduct of operations. One means by tactics everything involved in execution.” Quoted in Castex, 8
Marselli – “Strategy is not a princess marriageable only to a single commander-in-chief, but every soldier commanding a platoon applies, or ought to apply, strategy, appropriate to the operation to be accomplished.” Quoted in Castex, 8
H.M. Johnstone The Foundations of Strategy (1914)
Strategy deals with movements and the taking up of positions of an army or armies, or parts of an army, up to the time when the next movements will bring about the collision.
Col G.J. Fieberger, Elements of Strategy (1916)
Strategy in its most general sense may be defined to be the art of directing the employment of the armed strength of a nation to best secure the objects of war. It is not sufficient to create military force by raising, equipping, and training armies and navies, and constructing fortresses, but it is necessary to properly direct the employment of this force, lest it be dissipated in useless operations or destroyed in unnecessarily hazardous ones. Strategy deals with the problems of warfare involving combinations of force, space, and time. 5
Strategy is the intermediary between national policy which furnishes the means, and determines he object of a war, and tactics, through whose decisive battles, results alone are possible.
Colonel William K. Naylor Principles of Strategy with Historical Illustrations (1921)
During the past years, principally since the Franco-Prussian War, authors have been trying to frame numerous definitions of strategy and tactics. Some, desirous of finding in new arguments a remedy for past mistakes, have sought new theories of the art of war. Some deny that there is such a thing as strategy and attribute all success in war to numbers and to tactics. Others have considered the strategy as the conception and tactics the execution of an idea. Some have called strategy the science of operations and tactics the art of battles. The Germans call strategy the “art of the general-in-chief.” The term “strategy” is derived from the Greek strategos, meaning a general, hence the German definition. According to M. Thiers “strategy should conceive the plan of a campaign, take in with a single sweep the whole of the probable theater of war, mark out the line of operations, and direct the masses upon the decisive points. It is the duty of the tactician to regulate the order of marches, to place the forces for battle at the various points indicated by the strategist, to enter upon the action, sustain it, and maneuver so as to attain the end proposed.” For the purposes of this study, the definition of Jomini seems to be sufficient. He says “strategy is the art of maneuvering armies in the theater of operations: tactics, the art of disposing them on the battlefield.” It will be understood that this is an incomplete definition but serves the purpose until a more detailed discussion of the subject is taken in its proper place. 12-13.
Six points to consider: terrain and position, surprise, advance from several directions, assistance rendered by the theater of war, support of the people, morale. 16
In closing, the homely definition of strategy is again repeated. It is the application of common sense to war. The difficulty lies in its execution, for we are dependent on an infinite number of factors such as weather, condition of roads, health of troops, and so on. The great difficulty of execution is in deciding. 29
Strategy may be called the art of directing armies; tactics the science of troop leading. 40
Col James in Modern Strategy, quoted in Naylor:
]Strategy is] the endeavor to gain by violence an object which cannot be obtained by other means.” 80
Wagner, quoted in Naylor:
Strategy is the art of moving an army in the theater of operations, with a view of placing it in such a position, relative to the enemy, as to increase the probability of victory, increase the consequences of victory, and lessen the consequences of defeat. 40
Sir W.D.Bird The Direction of War (1925)
Strategy may be defined as the direction of management of war; and strategy in peace will, therefore, comprise the management of all national resources so that they may be capable of being exploited not only to the greatest possible extent, but also at the time when they will be most useful, should the necessity for protecting national interests involve the nation in war. 30-31
Footnote “The word is derived from the Greek stratos and army, and ago, to lead, whereas tactics from the Greek tasso, to sent in order, signifies the disposing of troops in order for battle and evolutions on the battle-field”
Oliver Prescott Robinson The Fundamentals of Military Strategy (1928)
Strategy is the use of the operations of war to gain the end of the war.2
Strategy deals with war or the preparation for war. It has to do with the planning for the whole and the reaping of the results of battles, or threat of battle brought about by the various combinations, movements, and use of all the armed forces of a power or of all the forces in a given theater or theater of operations. The armed forces include the military, naval, and air forces. 2
Strategy takes into consideration tactics, logistics, material assets, the theater of war, the psychology of the people and the national policies, from a viewpoint both of its own country and of the enemy. The purpose of strategy is to attain the national or political object through the complete, partial, or threatened achievement of the military aim, under the existing political, economic, and military conditions. 4
Strategy decides as to when and for what object battle is to be joined; then provides the necessary means; gives a direction to its army or armies, and provides for reaping the proper result of each operation. It then places its forces at that point or in that area where dispositions must be taken to meet the action of the opposing forces. Strategy looks beyond but does not definitely plan beyond this point as no plan of operation can, with any safety, include more than that collision with the enemy which forces an action the outcome of which always will be dependent upon local conditions too various to foresee. 6
Tactical also plans but its plans are for the actual conduct of the operations of war, the battles, marches, etc. Strategical plans fits these operations into the scheme of the whole. Tactical success is necessary to successful strategy, and no great result is gained by winning a battle, unless it comes as the final act of well planned strategical operations. That is, the battle must have contributed something in some way towards winning the war. 6
Strategy, by directing the armies and their concentration on the battlefield, provides tactics with the tools for fighting and assures the probability of victory; it then appropriates the fruits of each victory and makes them the basis for further plans. 7
Strategical operations are those operations conceived from the point of view of all the forces in a given theater or theater of operations. Strategy gives to its forces their mission; tactics fights the battles. 8
Discusses fundamental ideas of security, the objective, the offensive, superiority, economy of forces, movement, surprise, simplicity, cooperation and war planning.
George J Meyers Strategy (1928)
The science of combining and employing the means which different branches of the art of war afford, for the purposes of forming projects of operations and directing great military movements; the art of moving troops so as to be enabled to either dispense with a battle or to deliver one with the greatest advantage and with the most decisive results; generalship. xiv
Strategy is the provision, preparation, and use of diplomacy and of the nation’s armed forces in peace and in war to gain the purpose of national policy. xiv, 18
Strategy in war is the provision, preparation, and use of diplomacy and of the armed forces to gain the purposes of the war. xiv
Strategy, when considered as a large idea, deals with the means and ways to achieve our purpose. It is applied with equal freedom to broad schemes, such as a general plan for war, and to comparatively minor and more specific matters, as the detail and disposition of forces for a single engagement. The nation’s policies require that strategy answer the questions of what is to be done, how and why it is to be done. 6
Victory is the overcoming of an enemy in battle. Strategy, it its preparation for the contest, not only uses the armed forces but takes into consideration all the features of the terrain, the time of day, and the weather and uses them so that they may serve tactics when combat is joined. Tactics resumes where strategy leaves off, but strategy observes the course of events in the combat in order to use the victory gained…Strategic success includes, among other things, the making use of the victory gained 73
Strategy decides the time and place and the purpose of each combat, taking into consideration the circumstances of the situation. As victory in battle is the result that serves strategy’s needs, battle should be offered with the chance of success on our side. 76
Strategy in war is the employment of victory in battle to gain the end of the war. This is only one of the tasks of strategy. Another task of strategy is to provide the forces that take part in the battle. Still another task is to prepare the steps which lead up to a tactical action and which make the victory possible…Still other tasks of strategy are to give the armed forces other advantages than victory in battle, such as those that flow from the use of positions, lines of supply, terrain, climate – all of which are also inherently preparation. In addition, positions, lines of supply, terrain, climate, are used in conjunction with the employment of armed forces. Therefore, so far as concerns the armed forces in the field, strategy in war is the provision, preparation, and use of armed forces to gain the end of war. 76-77
Sir F. Maurice British Strategy: A Study of the Application of the Principles of War (1929):
“Strategy should then, I suggest be defined anew…as the art of applying national power to achieve the object of war. Strategy in general, as so defined, comprises political, naval, military, and air strategy. Each of the last three of these subdivisions of strategy is governed by the same general principles, though each of the three services has its own technique, different means and different methods of applying these principles.“ 63
We have to then think of strategy, first as the art of applying national power as a whole for the purposes of war; secondly, as an art in which moral and psychological factors have a supreme influence, since it is concerned with human beings more than machines, since even when machines multiply, their employment still depends on men, and thirdly, as an art which is never stationary, since the means and methods of applying it are ever varying. 67
Raoul Castex Strategic Theories (1931-1939)
Strategy treats the totality of war, embracing war as a whole and, especially in its directing principles. 3
Strategy is everywhere, at every level. It cannot be isolated as governing certain particular parts but is intermingled in the totality of war itself. There are no longer strategic operations since all military activity qualifies. 9
For me, strategy is nothing other than the general conduct of operations, the supreme art of leaders at a certain level in the hierarchy and of the general staff that serves them. Strategy prepares the battles, striving to bring them about under the best of conditions and to make them bring about the best results. Strategy links the battles together, controlling and coordinating them in accordance with the general inspiration of the campaign while reacting also to events. Guiding tactics, strategy gives its head at the proper time. Strategy before and after the battle, tactics during the battle – from the beginning to the end of the clash of arms – that is the formula to which I rally. 10
Strategy is nothing other than the general conduct of operations, the supreme art of chiefs of a certain rank and of the general staffs destined to serve as auxiliaries. Quoted in Hew Strachan The Direction of War 32
Alexander Svechin Strategy (1931)
The art of combining preparations for war with grouping of operations to achieve the objective set by war for the armed forces. Strategy decides issues associated with employing the armed forces and all the resources of the country for achieving ultimate war aims. Cited in Milan Vego Operational Warfare: Theory and Practice, I-39.
Mao Tse-Tung Problems of Strategy in China’s Revolutionary War (1936)
Strategy is the study of laws of a war situation as a whole. The task of the science of strategy is to study those laws for directing a war that govern the war situation as a whole.
Cyril Falls The Nature of Modern Warfare (1941)
The object of strategy is to engage the enemy in the most advantageous circumstances, leaving the decision to be gained by tactics. 80
Quincy Wright A Study of War (1942)
The management of operations so to affect such contact under maximum advantage in order to win campaigns is called “strategy”
John G. Burr The Framework of Battle (1943)
Strategy concerns the movements of armies before they come in contact with the enemy. 17
These strategical moves should be made so that when contact with the enemy is gained he will have to fight at a disadvantage. In other words, strategy is used to get the other chap on the hip when the fight occurs. Strategy wins wars but only when crowned by tactical success at the end of each move or series of moves. 20
Edward Meade Earle, Makers of Modern Strategy introduction (1943):
“Strategy deals with war, preparation for war, and the waging of war. Narrowly defined, it is the art of military command, of projecting and directing a campaign. It is different from tactics – which is the art of handling forcs in battle – in much the same way that an orchestra is different from its individual instruments. Until about the end of the eighteenth century strategy consisted of the body of strategems and tricks of war – ruses de guerre – by which a general sought to deceive the enemy and win victory. But as war and society have become more complicated – and war, it must be remembered, is an inherent part of society – strategy has of necessity required increasing consideration of nonmilitary factors, economic, psychological, moral, political, and technological. Strategy, therefore, is not merely a concept of wartime, but is an inherent element of statecraft at all times. Only the most restricted terminology would now define strategy as the art of military command. In the present-day world, then, strategy is the art of controlling and utilizing the resources of a nation – or a coalition of nations – including its armed forces, to the end that its vital interests shall be effectively promoted and secured against enemies, actual, potential, or merely presumed.” Viii
Diplomacy and strategy, political commitments and military power, are inseparable; unless this be recognized, foreign policy will be bankrupt…The very existence of a nation depends upon its concept of the national interest and the means by which the national interest is promoted; therefore, it is imperative that its citizens understand the fundamentals of strategy. X
As society becomes more highly industrialized, the art of war becomes more complex. As an almost inevitable result, the logistical and tactical factors in military operations tend to condition the strategy of which they are theoretically but a servant. Xi
B.H. Liddell Hart Thoughts on War (1944) Strategy: the Indirect Approach (1954)
[Strategy is] the art of distributing and applying military means to fulfill the ends of policy. Cited in Heuser, The Evolution of Strategy, 7.
Let us assume a strategist is empowered to seek a military decision. His responsibility is to seek it under the most advantageous circumstances in order to produce the most profitable result. Hence his true aim is not so much to seek battle as to seek a strategic situation so advantageous that if it does not of itself produce the decision, its continuation by battle is sure to achieve this. In other words, dislocation is the aim of strategy; its sequel may be either the enemy’s dissolution or his easier disruption in battle.
Pure strategy was still the art of the general, the role of grand strategy was to “coordinate and direct all the resources of the nation towards the attainment of the political object of the war – the goal defined by national policy. Quoted in Strachan The Direction of War 33
Strategy has not to overcome resistance, except from nature. Its purpose is to diminish the possibility of resistance, and it seeks to fulfill this purpose by exploiting the elements of movement and surprise....Although strategy may aim more at exploiting movement than at exploiting surprise, or conversely, the two elements react on each other. Movement generates surprise, and surprise gives impetus to movement. 337
Vasily.D. Sokolovski Military Strategy (1962)
[Strategy is] a system of scientific knowledge dealing with the laws of war as an armed conflict in the name of definite class interests (quoted in Science of Military Strategy 10)
Robert Osgood NATO: The Entangling Alliance (1962)
Strategy must now be understood as nothing less than the overall plan for utilizing the capacity or armed coercion – in conjunction with economic, diplomatic, and psychological instruments of power – to support foreign policy most effectively by overt, covert, and tacit means 5
Samuel Elliot Morison, Strategy and Compromise, (1958)
Strategy is well defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as “the art of moving or disposing of troops or ships” – to which we must now add “aircraft” – “as to impose upon the enemy the place and time and conditions for fighting preferred by oneself”; and to this I would add, “the art of defeating the enemy in the most economical and expeditious manner.” Strategy is distinct from tactics, which means the moving of military, naval, and air forces “in actual contact with the enemy”. In other words, tactics start where strategy ends, but both are the means for carrying a war to a successful conclusion. 4
Whereas strategy is only concerned with the problem of winning military victory, grand strategy must take the longer view – for its problem in the winning of the peace. 6
Thomas Schelling: The Strategy of Conflict (1963)
Strategy…is not concerned with the efficient application of force, but with the exploitation of potential force. Military Strategy can no longer be thought of as …the science of military victory. It is now equally, if not more, the art of coercion, of intimidation and deterrence. Military strategy, whether we like it or not, has become the diplomacy of violence. 15
E.J. Kingston McCloughry The Spectrum of Strategy (1964)
It is an illusion to suppose that politics, strategy, and tactics are three separate and necessarily different things; they all run together and are conjoined…. No one level can do the whole job but must consider it jointly with the others. 68
The positive aspects of strategy include questions of what forces to deploy and where to commit them to achieve our political and military aim. Strategy also involves the negative decisions regarding the forces, and the supporting forces and weapons to be withheld from the initial battle. It also embraces the decision as to then, where, and how to deploy those forces into battle. This problem affects every level of command, and, in general, strategy sets the framework within which tactical combat is engaged. 68-69
Andre Beaufre Introduction to Strategy (1965)
The art of the dialectic of two opposing wills using force to resolve their dispute. 23
The point, as we shall see, is that strategy cannot be a single defined doctrine; it is a method of thought, the object of which is to codify events, set them up in order of priority and then choose the most effective course of action. There will be a special strategy to fit each situation; any given strategy may be the best possible in certain situations and the worst conceivable in others. That is the basic truth. 13
The correct process of reasoning becomes even clearer when we come to consider the means to be employed by strategy. To reach the decision required, strategy will have available a whole gamut of means, both material and moral, ranging from nuclear bombardment to propaganda or a trade agreement. The art of strategy consists of choosing the most suitable means from those available and so orchestrating their results that they combine to produce a psychological pressure sufficient to achieve the moral effect required. 24
Strategy is the method by which policy of force is implemented; similarly tactics is the method by which strategy is implemented. This means that tactics must be the servant of strategy, not vice versa. 221
In war the loser deserves to lose because his defeat must result from errors of thinking, made either before or during conflict. Strategy is not some intellectual game played around the hard facts of war nor is it some self-important or pedantic method of applying reasoning to the problems thrown up by war. This short book will, I hope, have convinced the reader of this fact; I hope too it will show him what strategy is – a thought process which, complex though it is, should be able to point the way in practice towards achievement of the ends desired by policy and, even more important, eliminate those glaring errors of which there are so many examples in recent history. I2S 133
Below the level of policy, however, there is of course the complete pyramid of different levels of strategy; at the top is total strategy which co-ordinates the various strategies peculiar to each field; they in turn co-ordinate the operational strategies within the field concerned. Blow the whole pyramid of strategy comes tactics and techniques. Military strategy is only one form of overall strategy; depending upon the circumstances, it may play a vital role or merely an auxiliary. 134
According to the traditional concept of military strategy it should mean the art of employing military forces to achieve the ends set by political policy. This definition was formulated by Liddell Hart in 1929 and it hardly differs from that of Clausewitz. Raymond Aron in his recent book follows it almost word for word. In my view this definition is too restrictive because it deals with military forces only. I would put it as follows: the art of applying force so that it makes the most effective contribution towards achieving the ends set by political policy. This definition, however, is applicable to the whole art of war – awkward because by tradition the art of war is divided into strategy and tactics and a third sub-division has recently appeared – logistics.
In my view, the essence of strategy is the abstract interplay which, to use Foch’s phrase, springs from the clash between two opposing wills. It is the art which enables a man, no matter what the techniques employed, to master the problems set by any clash of wills and as a result to employ the techniques available with maximum efficiency. It is therefore the art of the dialectic of force, or, more precisely, the art of the dialectic of two opposing wills using force to resolve their dispute. This definition will justifiably be characterized as highly abstract and very general in terms. But it is on this plane that strategy must be considered if we are to understand the thought processes involved and the rules which emerge therefrom. Cited in The Art and Practice of Military Strategy 204-205. 22-23
J.C. Wylie Military Strategy: A Theory of Power Control (1967)
A plan of action designed in order to achieve some end:, a purpose together with a system of measures for its accomplishment
Henry Eccles Military Concepts and Philosophy (1968)
Strategy is the comprehensive direction of power to control situations and areas in order to attain objectives.” 48
Bernard Brodie War and Politics (1973)
Strategic thinking, or “theory” if one prefers, is nothing if not pragmatic. Strategy is a “how to do it” study, a guide to accomplishing something and doing it efficiently. As in many other branches of politics, the question that matters in strategy is: Will the idea work? More important, will it likely work under the special circumstances under which it will next be tested? These circumstances are not likely to be known or knowable much in advance of the moment of testing, through the uncertainty is itself a factor to be reckoned with in one’s strategic doctrine. Above all, strategic theory is a theory for action…[Describes critic who thought there was a difference between strategizing for policy prescriptions and strategizing for truth] What should strategic theory be for it were not meant to be transferrable to the world of action? To turn this critic’s own words, strategy is a field where truth is sought in the pursuit of viable solutions. In that respect it is like other branches of politics and like any of the applied sciences, and not at all like pure science, where the function of theory is to describe, organize, and explain and not to proscribe. 452-453
John Garnett “Strategic Studies and Its Assumptions” in Contemporary Strategy: Theories and Policies (1975)
Strategy is the way in which military power [is or might be] used by governments in pursuit of their interests. 3.
Michael Howard “The Strategic Approach to International Relations” (1976)
Since the term 'strategy' is now generally used to describe the use available resources to gain any objective, from winning at bridge to selling soap, it is necessary to make clear that, in this paper, I shall use it in traditional sense only: that is, as meaning the art of the strategos, military commander. 'The strategic approach' is thus one which takes account of the part which is played by force, or the threat of force, in international system. It is descriptive in so far as it analyses the extent which political units have the capacity to use or to threaten the use armed force to impose their will on other units ; whether to compel them to do some things, to deter them from doing others, or if need be destroy them as independent communities altogether. It is prescriptive so far as it recommends policies which will enable such units to operate in an international system which is subject to such conditions and constraints.67
Colonel William O. Staudenmaier, US Army “Strategic Concepts for the 1980s: Part I” (1981).
Peter Paret, Intro to Makers of Modern Strategy (1986)
The use of armed force to achieve military objectives, and by extension, the political purpose of the war. 3
Stephen Walt “The Search for a Science of Strategy”, book review of new Makers of Modern Strategy in International Security Vol. 12, No. 1 (Summer), pp. 140-165 (1987)
In the broadest sense, the strategist’s task is to formulate a “theory” explaining how a state can ensure its security and further other interests. Strategy relates ends and means; it identifies the steps that should be taken to achieve a specified objective. Ideally strategy should be based on empirically grounded hypotheses supported by appropriate evidence. Although the ideal is never fully achieved, the more strategic guidance is informed by an accurate appraisal of physical constraints, technological capacities, and social and political processes (e.g., the sources of military power, the enduring characteristics of the international system, etc.), the more likely it is to succeed. In principle, therefore, the development of strategy should be viewed as a scientific enterprise, where success depends on creativity, expertise, and the systematic analysis of many complex issues.” 141-142
John Boyd definition in Strategic Game presentation (July 1989)
What is strategy? A mental tapestry of changing intentions for harmonizing and focusing our efforts as a basis for realizing some aim or purpose in an unfolding and often unforeseen world of many bewildering events and many contending interests.
What is the aim or purpose of strategy? To improve our ability to shape and adapt to unfolding circumstances, so that we (as individuals or as groups or as a culture or as a nation‑state) can survive on our own terms.
What is the central theme and what are the key ideas that underlie strategy?
The central theme is one of interaction/isolation while the key ideas are the moral‑mental‑physical means toward realizing this interaction/isolation.
How do we play to this theme and activate these ideas?
By an instinctive see‑saw of analysis and synthesis across a variety of domains, or across competing/independent channels of information, in order to spontaneously generate new mental images or impressions that match‑up with an unfolding world of uncertainty and change.
(briefing note, not necessarily definition): Penetrate adversary’s moral-mental-physical being to dissolve his moral fiber, disorient his mental images, disrupt his operations, and overload his system, as well as subvert, shatter, seize, or otherwise subdue, those moral-mental-physical bastions, connections, or activities that he depends on, in order to destroy internal harmony, produce paralysis, and collapse adversary’s will to resist.
“The Skelton Report” (1989)
Witnesses before the panel defined strategy in numerous ways, but there was a basic concept underlying each of their definitions: that strategy is the link that translates power into the achievement of objectives For its purposes, the panel found it useful to differentiate between two specific types of strategy--national security strategy and national military strategy--and between operational art and tactics.25
National Military Strategy. The art and science of employing the armed forces of a nation to secure the objectives of national policy by the application of force or the threat of force. 26
As these definitions suggest, strategy encompasses the development of military capabilities that would be effective in preserving peace, during a war, and in an intermediate range of crisis situations. In other words, military strategy must address uses of the armed forces in peacetime to forestall war as well as the application of force during hostilities to achieve national security goals. 26
What is termed "operational art" today could be considered roughly equivalent to the 19th-century concept of strategy. As milltary forces grew in size and complexity and wars became global conflicts, the scope of what is meant by "military strategy" increased. Nevertheless, the need to plan and develop doctrine for geographically defined theaters of war continued. That is now the
province of operational art. 26-27
Robert Neild (1990)
The pursuit of political aims, buy the use or possession of military means. In formulating strategy, the first step is to decide on political aims. Without political aims, war is mindless destruction and the possession of a military means in peacetime is a mindless waste. Once political aims are specified, the military means must be selected and tailored to fit those aims.
Andrew Marshall “Strategy as a Profession for Future Generations” in Not Confusing Ourselves: Essays on National Security Strategy in Honor of Albert and Roberta Wohlstetter (1991)
…in general, strategy as contrasted with tactics deals with the coordination of activities at the higher levels of organizations. Strategy also focuses on shaping the future rather than simply reacting to it. p 303
Gregory D. Foster “Research, Writing, and the Mind of the Strategist” Joint Forces Quarterly (1996)
Strategy is ultimately about effectively exercising power. 111
Michael Handel Masters of War: Classical Strategic Thought, 2nd ed (1996)
Strategy is the development and use of all resources in peace and war in support of national policies to secure victory. 369
Williamson Murray and Mark Grimsley The Making of Strategy, (1996)
The concept of strategy has proven notoriously difficult to define. Many theorists have attempted it, only to see their efforts wither beneath the blasts of critics…In fact, such definitions go fundamentally astray, for strategy is a process, a constant adaptation to shifting conditions and circumstances in a world where chance, uncertainty, and ambiguity dominate. Moreover, it is a world in which the actions, intentions, and purposes of other participants remain shadowy and indistinct, taxing the wisdom and intuition of the canniest policymaker. 1
Art Lykke “Defining Military Strategy” Military Review, January-February (1997).
During a visit to the US Army War College in 1981, General Maxwell D. Taylor characterized strategy as consisting of objectives, ways and means. We can express this concept as an equation: Strategy equals ends (objectives toward which one strives) plus ways (courses of action) plus means (instruments by which some end can be achieved). This general concept can be used as a basis for the formulation of any type strategy-military, political, economic and so forth, depending upon the element of national power employed.
With our general concept of strategy as a guide-strategy equals ends plus ways plus means—we can develop an approach to military strategy. Ends can be expressed as military objectives. Ways are concerned with the various methods of applying military force. In essence, this becomes an examination of courses of action designed to achieve the military objective. These courses of action are termed “military strategic concepts.” Means refers to the military resources (manpower, materiel, money, forces, logistics and so forth) required to accomplish the mission. This leads us to the conclusion that military strategy equals military objectives plus military strategic concepts plus military resources. This conceptual approach is applicable to all three levels of war: strategic, operational and tactical. It also reveals the fundamental similarities among national military strategy, operational art and tactics. Strategists, planners, corps commanders and squad leaders are all concerned with ways to employ means to achieve ends.
There are two levels of military strategy: operational and force development. Strategies based on existing military capabilities are operational strategies—those that are used as a foundation for the formulation of specific plans for action in the short-range time period. This level of strategy has also been referred to as higher, or grand, tactics and operational art. Longer-range strategies may be based on estimates of future threats, objectives and requirements and are therefore not as constrained by current force posture. These longer-range strategies are more often global in nature and may require improvements in military capabilities. Military strategies can be regional as well as global, concerning themselves with specific threat scenarios.
Let us zero in on the first basic element of any military strategy—a military objective. It can be defined as a specific mission or task to which military efforts and resources are applied… In our definition of military strategy, the ultimate objectives are those of national policy.
In summary, military strategy consists of the establishment of military objectives, the formulation of military strategic concepts to accomplish the objectives and the use of military resources to implement the concepts. When any of these basic elements is incompatible with the others, our national security may be in danger.
Colin Gray Modern Strategy (1999)
Strategy is the bridge that relates military power to political purpose; it is neither military power per se or political purpose. By strategy I mean the use that is made of the threat of force for the ends of policy. …strategy is neither policy nor armed combat; rather it is the bridge between them.
The essence of strategy lies in the realm of the consequences of actions for future outcomes. 18
Richard Betts: “Is Strategy an Illusion?” International Security
Vol. 25, No. 2 (Fall, 2000), pp. 5-50 (2000)
Strategy is the essential ingredient for making war either politically effective or morally tenable. It is the link between military means and political ends, the scheme for how to make one produce the other. Strategy is a distinct plan between policy and operations, an idea for connecting the two rather than either of the two themselves Definition: Plan for using military means to achieve political ends. 5
Strategy is the essential ingredient for making war either politically effective or morally tenable…Without strategy, there is no rationale for how fore will achieve purposes worth the price in blood and treasure. Without strategy, power is a loose cannon and war is mindless…Because strategy is necessary, however, does not mean that it is possible. Those who experience or study wars find strong reasons to doubt that strategists can know enough about causes, effects, and intervening variables to make the operations planned produce the outcomes desired. 5
Edward Luttwak in Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace (2001)
[Strategy] encompasses the conduct and consequences of human relations in the context of actual or possible armed conflict
PRC Military Science Publishing House The Science of Military Strategy (2001)
Strategy (or military strategy) in China’s new period is taking the national comprehensive power as its foundation, the thought of active defense as its guidance, and winning local war under high-tech conditions as its basic point to construct and exercise military strength; and carrying out the overall and whole-course operation and guidance of war preparations and war for the purpose of protecting national sovereignty and security. 12
IB Holley Technology and Doctrine (2004)
Military strategy involves the selection of objectives and course of action, the choice of targets, and the selection of forces to be employed. Military strategy is concerned with the ends sought and the means to attain those ends. 2-3
Franz Osinga Science, Strategy, and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd (2005)
Strategy concerns both organization and environment: the organization uses strategy to deal with changing environments; Strategy affects overall welfare of the organization: strategic decisions are considered important enough to affect the overall welfare of the organization; Strategy involves issues of both content and process: the study of strategy includes both the actions taken, or the content of strategy, and the processes by which actions are decided and implemented; Strategies exist on different levels: firms have corporate strategy (what business shall we be in?) and business strategy (how shall we compete in each business?); Strategy involves various thought processes: strategy involves conceptual as well as analytical exercises.”
Dr Everett Carl Dolman Pure Strategy 2005: Strategy is not a thing that can be poked, prodded, and probed. It is an idea, a product of the imagination. It is about the future, and above all it is about change. It is, in a word, alchemy: a method of transmutation from idea into action. Definition: a plan for attaining continuing advantage.
Angelo Codevilla and Paul Seabury from War: Ends and Means (2006)
Strategy is a fancy word for a roadmap for getting from here to there, from the situation at hand to the situation one wishes to attain. Strategy is the very opposite of abstract thinking. It is the intellectual connection between the things one wants to achieve, the means at hand, and the circumstances.”
Dr Dennis M. Drew and Dr Donald M. Snow from Making 21st Century Strategy (2006)
A plan of action that organizes efforts to achieve an objective.
Dr. Jack Kem Campaign Planning, Tools of the Trade (2006)
Simply put, strategy is the art and science of applying the resources of a nation to the interests and goals of that nation. This requires the integration of the ends (the purposes or objectives of a nation), the ways (courses of action), and the means (the resources of the nation).
Colin Gray Fighting Talk: Twenty Maxims on War and Strategy (2007)
Regarded narrowly in its military dimension, it is the bridge that connects the worlds of policy and military power. It is strategy that interprets the meaning of that power to serve the purposes of policy.
Milan Vego Operational Art: Theory and Practice (2007)
In the simplest terms, strategy can be defined broadly as the process of interrelating and harmonizing the ends with the means. I-40
Military strategy is the art and practice of using or threatening to use military instruments of power to accomplish the political objectives of national or alliance/coalition strategy. To be successful, military strategy should be consonant with diplomatic, political, economic, informational, and other aspects of national strategy. Strategy is often (wrongly) understood to include the actual employment of one’s military forces through the conduct of campaigns and major operations. This is, however, not the case today, nor has it been true since the end of the nineteenth century, when “operations” emerged as the third and intermediate field of study and practice between strategy and tactics. I-40
Steven Biddle “Strategy In War” 2007
Military (or Theater) strategy prescribes how military instruments per se are to achieve the goals set for them by grand strategy in a given theater of war 462
Mackubin Thomas Owens “Strategy and the Strategic Way of Thinking” (2007)
Strategy is often portrayed as the interaction of ends, ways, and means, which is a useful formulation. In essence, strategy describes the way in which the available means will be employed to achieve the ends of policy. 111
Previously, writers such as Nicocolo Machiavelli had his successors through the eighteenth century had used a related term, “stratagem” to mean a ruse or gambit to achieve advantage through surprise. While such writers limited their use of “strategy” to mean the application of military forces to fulfill the aims of policy, it is increasingly the practice today to employ the term more broadly, so that one can speak of levels of strategy during peace and war. Accordingly, more often than not, strategy now refers not only to the direct application of military force in wartime but also to the use of all aspects of national power during peacetime to deter war and win. 112
For our purposes, “policy” refers primarily to such broad national goals as interests and objectives, and “strategy” to the alternative courses of actions designed to achieve those goals, within the constraints of material factors and geography. 112
In general, strategy provides a conceptual link between national ends and scarce resources, both the transformation of those resources into means during peacetime and the application of those means during war. As such, it serves three purposes. First, strategy relates ends or the goals of policy (interests and objectives) to the limited means available to achieve them. Both strategy and economics are concerned with the application of scarce means to achieve certain goals. But strategy implies an adversary who actively opposes the achievement of the ends. Second, strategy contributes to the clarification of the ends of policy by helping to establish priorities in the light of constrained resources. Without establishing priorities among competing ends, all interests and all threats will appear equal. In the absence of strategy, planners will find themselves in the situation described by Frederick the Great: “He who attempts to defend too much defends nothing.” Finally, strategy conceptualizes resources as a means in support of policy. Resources are not means until strategy provides some understanding of how they will be organized and employed. Defense budgets and manpower are resources. Strategy organizes these resources into divisions, wings, and fleets and then employs them to deter war or to prevail should deterrence fail. 113
Although strategy can be described as the conceptual link between ends and means, it cannot be reduced to a mere mechanical exercise. Instead, it is “a process, a constant adaptation to shifting conditions and circumstances in a world where chance, uncertainty, and ambiguity dominate.” 113
It is a mistake to attempt to reduce strategy to a single aspect, although it is not unusual for writers on strategy to try…Strategy, properly understood, is a complex phenomena comprising of a number of elements. Among the most important are geography, history, the nature of the political regime, including such elements as religion, ideology, culture, and political and military institutions; and economic and technological factors. Accordingly, strategy can be said to constitute a continual dialogue between policy on one hand and those other factors on the other. 113
Strategy is designed to secure national interests and attain the objectives of national policy by the application of force or threat of force. Strategy is dynamic, changing as the factors that influence it change. 121
David Lonsdale Understanding Modern Warfare (2008).
The art of using military force against an intelligent foe(s) towards the attainment of policy objectives.
Thomas G. Mahnken and Joseph A. Maiolo Strategic Studies: A Reader 2nd ed. (2008)
Strategy is about how to win wars…Strategy is, or rather should be, a rational process…In other words, success in war requires a clear articulation of political aims and the development of an adequate strategy to achieve them…As Germany demonstrated in two World Wars, mastery of tactics and operations counts for little without a coherent or feasible strategy. Successful strategy is based upon clearly identifying political goals, assessing the comparative advantage relative to the enemy, calculating costs and benefits carefully, and examining the risks and rewards of alternative strategies. 2
Lawrence Freedman. “Strategic Studies and the problem of power” in Strategic Studies: A Reader (2008)
One sees the term strategy misapplied often. There is a tendency to use it as a general term for a plan, concept, course of action, or "idea" of a direction in which to proceed. Such use is inappropriate. Strategy is the domain of the senior leader at the higher echelons of the state, the military, business corporations, or other institutions.
Art Lykke gave coherent form to a theory of strategy with his articulation of the three-legged stool model of strategy which illustrated that strategy = ends + ways + means and if these were not in balance the assumption of greater risk. In the Lykke proposition (model) the ends are “objectives,” the ways are the “concepts” for accomplishing the objectives, and the means are the “resources” for supporting the concepts. The stool tilts if the three legs are not kept in balance. If any leg is too short, the risk is too great and the strategy falls over.12
Henry Eccles describes strategy as "... the comprehensive direction of power to control situations and areas in order to attain objectives." His definition captures much of the essence of strategy. It is comprehensive, it provides direction, its purpose is control, and it is fundamentally concerned with the application of power. Strategy as used in the Army War College curriculum focuses on the nation-state and the use of the elements of power to serve state interests. In this context, strategy is the employment of the instruments (elements) of power (political/diplomatic, economic, military, and informational) to achieve the political objectives of the state in cooperation or in competition with other actors pursuing their own objectives.
Strategy is all about how (way or concept) leadership will use the power (means or resources) available to the state to exercise control over sets of circumstances and geographic locations to achieve objectives (ends) that support state interests. Strategy provides direction for the coercive or persuasive use of this power to achieve specified objectives. This direction is by nature proactive. It seeks to control the environment as opposed to reacting to it. Strategy is not crisis management. It is its antithesis. Crisis management occurs when there is no strategy or the strategy fails. Thus, the first premise of a theory of strategy is that strategy is proactive and anticipatory.
A second premise of a theory of strategy is that the strategist must know what is to be accomplished--that is, he must know the end state that he is trying to achieve. Only by analyzing and understanding the desired end state in the context of the internal and external environment can the strategist develop appropriate objectives leading to the desired end state.
A third premise of a theory of strategy is that the strategy must identify an appropriate balance among the objectives sought, the methods to pursue the objectives, and the resources available. In formulating a strategy the ends, ways, and means are part of an integral whole and if one is discussing a strategy at the national (grand) level with a national level end, the ways and means would similarly refer to national level concepts and resources. That is ends, ways, and means must be consistent. Thus a National Security Strategy end could be supported by concepts based on all the instruments of power and the associated resources. For the military element of power, the National Military Strategy would identify appropriate ends for the military to be accomplished through national military concepts with national military resources. In a similar manner a Theater or Regional Commander in Chief (CINC) would have specific theater level objectives for which he would develop theater concepts and use resources allocated to his theater. In some cases these might include other than military instruments of power if those resources are available. The levels of strategy are distinct, but interrelated because of the hierarchical and comprehensive nature of strategy.
A fourth premise of strategy is that political purpose must dominate all strategy; thus, Clausewitz’ famous dictum, "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means." Political purpose is stated in policy. Policy is the expression of the desired end state sought by the government. In its finest form it is clear articulation of guidance for the employment of the instruments of power towards the attainment of one or more end states. In practice it tends to be much vaguer.
A fifth premise is that strategy is hierarchical. Foster argues that true strategy is the purview of the leader and is a "weltanschauung" (world view) that represents both national consensus and comprehensive direction. In the cosmic scheme of things Foster may well be right, but reality requires more than a "weltanschauung." Political leadership insures and maintains its control and influence through the hierarchical nature of state strategy. Strategy cascades from the national level down to the lower levels.
A sixth premise is that strategy is comprehensive. That is to say, while the strategist may be devising a strategy from a particular perspective, he must consider the whole of the strategic environment in his analysis to arrive at a proper strategy to serve his purpose at his level. He is concerned with external and internal factors at all levels. On the other hand, in formulating a strategy, the strategist must also be cognizant that each aspect--objectives, concepts, and resources--has effects on the environment around him. Thus, the strategist must have a comprehensive knowledge of what else is happening and the potential first, second, third, etc., order effects of his own choices on the efforts of those above, below, and on his same level. The strategist’s efforts must be fully integrated with the strategies or efforts of senior, co-equal, and subordinate elements. Strategists must think holistically--that is comprehensively. They must be cognizant of both the "big picture," their own institution’s capabilities and resources, and the impact of their actions on the whole of the environment. Good strategy is never developed in isolation.
A seventh premise is that strategy is developed from a thorough analysis and knowledge of the strategic situation/environment. The purpose of this analysis is to highlight the internal and external factors that help define or may affect the specific objectives, concepts, and resources of the strategy.
The last premise of a theory of strategy is that some risk is inherent to all strategy and the best any strategy can offer is a favorable balance against failure. Failure can be either the failure to achieve one’s own objectives and/or providing a significant advantage to one’s adversaries.
Lawrence Freedman “Strategic Studies and the problem of power” in Strategic Studies: a Reader, 2nd ed, 2008
The fact that military strategy must come to terms with force distinguishes it from those other forms of planning which are often described as strategic but which do not involve “functional and purposeful violence.” In one pithy definition Howard describes military strategy as “organized coercion”. 11
Thus, along with Beaufre, Howard sees strategy as a ‘dialectic of two opposing wills’. The stress on ‘will’ in an analysis of the meaning of strategy is important because it provides a link with the classic definitions of power, which Howard by and large follows, as referring to the ability to get one’s way against a resistant opponent. In one essay he defines it as the ability of political units ‘to organize the relevant elements of the external world to satisfy their needs.’ As an attribute of a political unit this is normally described as a capacity. So strategic power becomes ‘coercive capacity’, which is elaborated elsewhere as ‘the capacity to use violence for the protection, enforcement or extension of authority.” 12
Strategy is the art of creating power to obtain the maximum political objective using available military means. 12
While strategy may start with a visible conflict which will have to be decided by force the ideal resolution may be for A to turn his advantage into authority. The institutionalization of advantage so that it becomes reflected in consensus and procedure is the supreme achievement of strategy. Strategists specialize in situations in which force may be necessary, but a sole preoccupation with force misses the opportunities of authority. Though all power is unstable, that based on authority has a much longer half-life than that based on force...Force may for a moment provide complete control but the instability of such control requires that either it is renewed continuously or else transformed, thought the strategist’s art, into authority. In this sense strategy is the art of power. 20
The ideal for the strategist might be to achieve a condition of “pure coercion”, when his will becomes irresistible, but the opportunities for this have been diminishing in the modern international system and so a state resorting to force as an instrument of policy must overcome an opposing, and armed, will. 11
Marcella and Fought, “Teaching Strategy in the 21st Century”1st Quarter Joint Forces Quarterly (2009)
Strategy is the art of applying power to achieve objectives, within the limits imposed by policy.”
Colin Gray Schools for Strategy: Teaching Strategy for 21st Century Conflict (2009)
I choose to define (military) strategy as the direction and use that is made of force and the threat of force for the ends of policy.7
Any definition of strategy unambiguously must convey the idea that it is about directing and using something to achieve a selected purpose. 7
Andrew Krepenevich and Barry Watts Regaining Strategic Competence (2009) – As a practical matter, strategy is about making insightful choices of courses of action likely to achieve one’s goals despite resource constraints, political considerations, bureaucratic resistance, the adversary’s opposing efforts, and the intractable uncertainties as to how a chosen strategy may ultimately work out. Competent strategy focuses on how one’s ends may be achieved. In this vein, strategy is fundamentally about identifying or creating asymmetric advantages that can be exploited to help achieve one’s ultimate objectives despite resource and other constraints – most critically the opposing efforts of one’s adversaries and the inherent unpredictability of strategic outcomes. (viii)
Krepenevich and Watts Regaining Strategic Competence (2009) Another important distinction Rumelt makes is that strategy formulation is distinct from strategic planning. Planning is about the coordination of resources in time and space, and by type, in order to implement a strategy…Or, as business strategist Henry Mintzberg has put it, strategic planning “has really been strategic programming, the articulation and elaboration of strategies, or visions, that already exist.”. While careful strategic planning should not be denigrated or ignored, it is quite different from the ability of a talented strategist to see deeper into the possibilities and probabilities of a competitive situation than the adversary and, as a result, to hit on a strategy that is likely to succeed. Strategic planning may be necessary to implement a strategic design – especially at the national level – but it need not be either long-term or reflect genuine insight into a competitive situation. Strategy is about insight, creativity, and synthesis. Strategic planning, by contrast, is about the analytic process of “breaking down a goal or set of intentions into steps, formalizing these steps so that they can be implemented almost automatically, and articulating the anticipated consequences or results of each step. Strategy, therefore, should not be conflated with strategic planning. 17-18
Krepenevich and Watts Regaining Strategic Competence (2009) Strategy is fundamentally about identifying to creating asymmetric advantages that can be exploited to help achieve one’s ultimate objectives despite resource and other constraints, most importantly the opposing efforts of adversaries or competitors and the inherent unpredictability of strategic outcomes...At its core, strategy is about finding asymmetries in competitive situations that can be exploited to one’s advantage. This perspective also suggests why good strategy is so difficult. Very few among us possess the cognitive skills for genuine strategic insight. 19
Colin S Gray The Strategy Bridge (2010)
…strategy seeks control over an enemy’s political behavior, and that the threat or use of military force will be more or less prominent among the instruments of power that strategists orchestrate in their bridging function between means and ends. The key terms are control, force, bridge, and effect…Although the practice of strategy strictly does not require the threat or use of military force, such action will always be plausibly possible. If this condition is not met, one is not dealing with strategy as it is understood in this book. 7
…strategy is an idea, a function, a behavior that almost begs to be abused as a consequence of misapprehension.” 17
(content neutral) The direction and use made of means by chosen ways in order to achieve desired ends.
Military strategy: The direction and use made of force for the purposes of policy as decided by politics. Military strategy exists as generic general theory (as in Clausewitz and here chapters 1 and 2) as well as in historical strategies. The latter have to be approached both as uniquely distinctive plans and in terms of their consequences (strategic effect, ultimately). Definitions that identify strategy and strategies only as plans should be rejected because they fail to grip the essence of strategy, which is its instrumental nature. Strategy has to be expressed in strategies as plans, but most significantly it is about the intended consequences of the operational and tactical behavior advanced by those plans…One has a strategy which is done by tactics. 18, 20
Strategy has just one function: to provide a secure connection between the worlds of purpose, which contestably is generally called policy, though politics may be more accurate, and its agents and instruments, including the military. To employ the metaphor of the strategy bridge is to offer an effective way in which strategy’s function can be explained. 29
The whole point of strategy, after all, is to bridge the divide between politics and (military) action in the field. Military behavior naked of political purpose is meaningless in our culture. We are Clausewitzians. 135
Hew Strachan. “Strategy or Alibi?” (2010)
Strategy is about the relationships between means and ends. It has become common currency to talk about the plan of the campaign in Afghanistan as a ‘counter-insurgency strategy’. If that is the case, then it rests on an old-fashioned and narrow definition of strategy. When Clausewitz defined strategy as the use of the battle for the purposes of the war, he was thinking along not dissimilar lines, and his characterisation of strategy remained fairly standard among European armies up to and including the First World War. But it did not carry much weight thereafter. Twentieth-century descriptions saw strategy as linking war to policy. 158
Dr. Harold Winton SAASS memo (2010)
Strategy is the art of shaping the future to conform to the desires of an individual or collective will in activities of broad scope; significant consequence; and, normally, long duration.
Strategy is almost always competitive and frequently adversarial. It is an act of intellect and will that requires holistic thinking and strong determination. Its proficient practice demands long-term continuity of purpose combined with short-term flexibility of method; a constant striving to obtain relative advantage; the artful matching of ends, ways, and means; clarity of thought and expression; historical awareness to look backward in time to assess probabilities and trends; creative imagination to look forward in time to assess the significance and potentialities of new and changing circumstances; awareness of one’s own and one’s adversary’s cultural proclivities, strengths, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities; and the capacity to persuade others to commit themselves to accomplishment of the strategic purpose and to the method chosen to realize it. Unanticipated events; the active resistance of a resourceful adversary; and mistakes, disunity, and loss of heart on one’s own side create friction that impedes the implementation of any strategy. Although it is fundamentally an art, strategy can be materially aided by sound science. As a plan of action, strategy is a product; but the requirement for wide coordination and almost constant adaptation also give it the characteristics of a process. Basic strategic concepts should be elegantly simple; but the practice of strategy is excruciatingly complex.
J Boone Bartholomees A Survey of the Theory of Strategy (2010)
The U.S. Army War College defines strategy in two ways: “Conceptually, we define strategy as the relationship among ends, ways, and means.” Alternatively, “Strategic art, broadly defined, is therefore: The skillful formulation, coordination, and application of ends (objectives), ways (courses of action), and means (supporting resources) to promote and defend the national interests. 13
In my own view, strategy is simply a problem solving process. It is a common and logical way to approach any problem—military, national security, personal, business, or any other category one might determine. Strategy asks three basic questions: what is it I want to do, what do I have or what can I reasonably get that might help me do what I want to do, and what is the best way to use what I have to do what I want to do? Thus, I agree with the War College that strategy is the considered relationship among ends, ways, and means.13
Part of the problem is that our understanding of strategy has changed over the years. The word has a military heritage, and classic theory considered it a purely wartime military activity—how generals employed their forces to win wars. In the classic usage, strategy was military maneuvers to get to a battlefield, and tactics took over once the forces were engaged. That purely military concept has given way to a more inclusive interpretation. The result is at least threefold: 1) Strategists generally insist that their art includes not only the traditional military element of power but also other elements of power like politics and economics. Most would also accept a peacetime as well as a wartime role for strategy. 2) With increased inclusiveness the word strategy became available outside the military context and is now used in a variety of disciplines ranging from business to medicine and even sports. 3) As the concept mutated, the military had to invent another term—the U.S. settled on operations or operational art—to describe the high-level military art that had once been strategy.1
Thomas Mahnken “Strategic Theory” in Strategy in the Contemporary World 4th ed. (2010)
Strategy is ultimately about how to win wars. Any discussion of strategy must therefore begin with an understanding of war. First, the fact that war involves force separates it from other types of political, economic, and military competition. Second, the fact that war is not senseless slaughter but rather an instrument that is used to achieve a political purpose, differentiates it from other types of violence. Distinguishing war from non-war is important because it determines whether strategic theory can provide insight into the problem at hand. 61-62
Strategy is about making war useable for political purposes. If tactics is about employing troops in battle and operational art is concerned with conducting campaigns, then strategy deals with using military means to fulfil the ends of policy. It is the essential link between political objectives and military force, between ends and means…In recent decades, the definition of strategy has expanded to include peacetime activity. Edward Meade Earle, writing during the Second World War, argued that strategy was ‘an inherent element of statecraft at all times.” (Earle 1943, viii) With the advent of nuclear weapons, strategic theory expanded to include peacetime military competition, such as the four-decade cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union. The expanding definition of strategy has at times devalued the concept and led to confusion about the relationship between policy and strategy (Strachan 2005:34) 62-63
Beatrice Heuser The Evolution of Strategy (2010)
Strategy with a capital “S” - The link between political aims and the use of force, or its threat. 3
John Andreas Olsen The Practice of Strategy (2011)
It has since [Liddell Hart] become popular to place strategy in a rigid hierarchy that descends from political vision and policy to grand strategy, of which military strategy is but one part, which in its turn is implemented by operations that are expressed tactically. Such a hierarchy makes sense, but it presents challenges. First, it is hard to distinguish purpose from action, and to recognize that every ‘level’ in the hierarchy is both the instrument for the ‘level’ above and the purpose for the ‘level’ below. As tactics is an application of military strategy on a lower plane, so military strategy is an application of grand strategy on a lower plane. Bereft of political guidance, strategy is meaningless; further, in the absence of assessment of operational and tactical feasibility, it is likely to prove fruitless. 2
Though technically distinct, the levels of war that typically are presented and treated as discrete steps are in truth wholly interdependent. The implication of these mutual dependencies is that even when one focuses upon strategy, and strives to define it clearly, the subject cannot be examined intelligently in isolation from policy or from operations and tactics. 2
In its most generic sense, strategy is “the art of winning by purposely matching ends, ways, and means’. Ends are the objective, such as unconditional surrender, conditional victory, stalemate, or victory denial; ways are the forms through which a strategy is pursued, such as a military campaign, diplomacy, or economic sanctions; and means are the resources available, such as soldiers, weapons, and money. It follows that military strategy is the bridge between military power and political purpose, wherein ends are the political end-state, ways the operational plan of campaign, and means the military forces at the leader’s disposition.
John Stone Military Strategy: The Politics and Technique of War (2011)
Striking an appropriate balance between the military and political dimensions of warfare is the job of strategy...For present purposes, I propose to define strategy as the instrumental link between military means and political ends… specifying armed force as the means available to strategy we avoid trespassing into the domain of grand strategy, an activity that is concerned with the application of the totality of national resources in the pursuit of political goals. 2, 4
At base, strategy involves the translation of political goals into one or more subordinate objectives that are amenable to the application of armed force. 5
Hew Strachan The Direction of War (2013)
Strategy is a profoundly pragmatic business: it is about doing things, about applying means to ends. It is an attempt to make concrete a set of objectives through the application of military force to a particular case. 12
If was is an instrument of policy, strategy is the tool that enables us to understand it and gives us our best chance of managing and directing it. 23
Strategy is designed to make war useable to the state, so that it can, if need be, use force to fulfil its political objectives 43
Lawrence Freedman Strategy: A History, 2013
…strategy remains the best word we have for expressing attempts to think about actions in advance, in light of our goals and our capacities. It captures a process for which there are no obvious alternative words, although the meaning has become diluted through promiscuous and often inappropriate use. x
There is no agreed-upon definition of strategy that describes the field and limits its boundaries. One common contemporary definition describes it as being about maintaining a balance between ends, ways, and means; about identifying objectives; and about the resources and methods available for meeting such objectives. This balance requires not only finding out how to achieve desired ends but also adjusting ends so that realistic ways can be found to meet them by available means. xi
By and large, strategy comes into play where there is actual or potential conflict, when interests collide and forms of resolution are required. This is why strategy is much more than a plan. A plan supposes a sequence of events that allows one to move with confidence from one state of affairs to another. Strategy is required when others might frustrate one’s plans because they have different and possibly opposing interests and concerns. Xi
…strategy is the central political art. It is about getting more out of a situation than the starting balance of power would suggest. It is the art of creating power. xii
Thomas Kane Strategy: Key Thinkers (2013)
[Strategy is]…people’s efforts to take control of their political destiny…primarily a mental activity. Although strategic thinkers must pay attention to material factors such as the size of armies and the effects of weapons, they are primarily interested in the challenges of using military instruments effectively, not in the instruments themselves.” “…the fact that strategy is an intellectual endeavor may not mean that it is a coldly rational one…success in war depends on intangibles of will, charisma, experience, and intuitive judgment, at least as often as it depends on logical analysis P 2.
Randall G. Bowdish Military Strategy: Theory and Concepts (2013)
Military strategy: A plan that describes how military means and concepts of employment are used to achieve military objectives.” 286
Antulio Echevarria II Reconsidering the American Way of War (2014)
Military strategy, as previously stated, is the “art of the general.” It It is how generals and admirals employed their forces to defeat their opponents pursuant to accomplishing the war’s purpose. It is important to note that military strategy differs in scope from national or grand strategy. Grand strategy deals not only with military power, but also with economic power and diplomacy, as well as other tools of statecraft. Put differently, if military strategy is regarded as the art of the general, then grand strategy is the “art of the monarch or the head of state.” 49
In describing the practice of American military strategy, we would do well to recall Moltke’s well-known description of strategy as a “system of expedients”. Moltke’s principal message was that strategy is more than a disciplined body of concepts. It is also the ad hoc practice of adapting those concepts to changing circumstances. 51
Williamson Murray and Richard Hart Sinnreich Successful Strategies (2014)
So what is strategy? Simply put, one can argue that it is a matter of connecting available means to a political goal or goals. But of course, it is much more. As Sun Tzu suggests, not only a deep understanding of oneself, but an equally sophisticated understanding of one’s opponents distinguish the great strategist from the herd. Moreover, strategy demands constant adaptation to ever changing political and military environments. 4
Alan Stephens and Nicola Baker Making Sense of War (2014)
Strategy is best described as the bridge between policy and operations; that is, as a plan for the employment of military forces in pursuit of political objectives.
Colin Gray, The Future of Strategy (2015)
Military strategy is the direction and use made of force and the threat of force for the purposes of policy as decided by politics... Tactics is all about action, doing things, while strategy is about the consequences of the preceding tactical behavior
Everett Carl Dolman, “Seeking Strategy” in Strategy: Context and Adaptation From Achidamus to Airpower (2016)
The tactical thinker seeks an answer... The strategist will instead search for the right questions…Strategy is thus an unending process that can never lead to a conclusion. And this is the way it should be: continuation is the goal of strategy – not culmination.
The chess master is thus a tactical thinker…When there is no action allowed in the rules that would reverse the coming defeat, surrender will be offered. Tactics are triumphant when choices are eliminated… To the extent that the game of chess has master strategists, they would not be concerned about the outcome of a particular game or tournament. For them, the outcome of each game establishes new conditions and boundaries for subsequent play. The desire is not to win but to continue playing chess on favorable terms
David Lonsdale Understanding Modern Warfare, 2nd ed. (2016)
Strategy – The process that converts military power into policy effect. 40
Antulio J. Echevarria II, Military Strategy: A Very Short Introduction, (2017)
Military strategy is the practice of reducing an adversary’s physical capacity and willingness to fight, and continuing to do so until one’s aim is achieved. It takes place during wartime as well as peacetime, and may involve using force, directly or indirectly, as a threat. Reducing an opponent’s capacity and willingness to fight is always a relative matter; one can achieve it by building a quantitative or qualitative superiority in military power well before hostilities commence. 1
Doctrinal Definitions of Strategy
Dictionary of the U.S. Military Terms for Joint Usage (1964)
Strategy is the development and use of political, economic, psychological and military forces as necessary during peace and war, to afford the maximum support to policies, in order to increase the probabilities and favorable consequences of victory and to lessen the chances of defeat. Cited in Heuser, The Evolution of Strategy, 9.
Joint Encyclopedia
These strategies integrate national and military objectives (ends), national policies and military concepts (ways), and national resources and military forces and supplies (means). 731, 542.
DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms Feb (2017)
Strategy: A prudent idea or set of ideas for employing the instruments of national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and/or multinational objectives. (JP 3-0)
Strategic concept: The course of action accepted as the result of the estimate of the strategic situation which is a statement of what is to be done in broad terms. (JP 5-0)
Strategic estimate: The broad range of strategic factors that influence the commander’s understanding of its operational environment and its determination of missions, objectives, and courses of action. (JP 5-0)
JP 3-0 (2001)
Strategy – the art and science of developing and employing instruments of national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and/or multinational objectives
JP 3-0 (2006)
Strategy — A prudent idea or set of ideas for employing the instruments of national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and/or multinational objectives. (Vego calls this a huge step backward since “prudent idea is too simple – See “Problems of common terminology” in Joint Operational Warfare: Theory and Practice XI-84)
strategic level of war — The level of war at which a nation, often as a member of a group ofnations, determines national or multinational (alliance or coalition) strategic security objectives and guidance, and develops and uses national resources to achieve these objectives. Activities at this level establish national and multinational military objectives; sequence initiatives; define limits and assess risks for the use of military and other instruments of national power; develop global plans or theater war plans to achieve those objectives; and provide military forces and other capabilities in accordance with strategic plans. See also operational level of war; tactical level of war.
theater strategy — Concepts and courses of action directed toward securing the objectives of national and multinational policies and strategies through the synchronized and integrated employment of military forces and other instruments of national power. See
also national military strategy; national security strategy; strategy. (JP 3-0)
FM 3-0
Strategy is defined as “the art and science of developing and employing armed forces and other instruments of national power in a synchronized fashion to secure national or multinational objectives.”7
AFDD 2-1 Air Warfare:
Strategy is a means to accomplish an end
MCDP 1-2 Campaigning:
Military strategy is the art and science of employing the armed forces of a nation to secure the objectives of national policy by the application of force or the threat of force. It involves the establishment of military strategic objectives, the allocation of resources, the imposition of conditions on the use of force, and the development of war plans.7
MCDP 1-1
At its most basic, strategy is a matter of figuring out what we need to achieve, determining the best way to use the resources at our disposal to achieve it, and then executing the plan. 9
“Strategy, broadly defined, is the process of interrelating ends and means. When we apply this process to a particular set of ends and means, the product—that is, the strategy—is a specific way of using specified means to achieve distinct ends. Strategy is thus both a process and a product. 37
Strategy is both a product and a process. That is, strategy involves both the creation of plans—specific strategies to deal with specific problems—and the process of implementing them in a dynamic, changing environment. Therefore, strategy requires both detailed planning and energetic adaptation to evolving events.
Soviet Union Military Encyclopedia
“the component and top realm of military art. It includes theory and practice of war preparations, planning, and performing war and strategic operations by the nation and the armed forces. A system of science knowledge, theory of military strategy studies laws and strategic characteristics of war, methods to wage war, and theoretic principles of making planning, preparations and performance of war and strategic operations. As a realm of practice, military strategy addresses the following questions: determining strategic roles of the armed forces and manpower and weapons required to fulfill the strategic tasks in accordance with the particular conditions in war; planning and carrying out war preparations of the national armed forces, theater of war, economy and populace; and taking measures to work out war and strategic operations plans. Military strategy stems from politics and serves politics. Quoted in The Science of Military Strategy 10
Other Descriptions and Definitions of Strategy
Dictionary.com : the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations. Strategy is the utilization, during both peace and war, of all of a nation's forces, through large-scale, long-range planning and development, to ensure security or victory.
Derivation from Wikipedia: The word derives from the Greek word stratēgos, which derives from two words: stratos (army) and ago (ancient Greek for leading). Stratēgos referred to a 'military commander' during the age of Athenian Democracy.
Richard Rumelt. The quintessential strategy story is of unexpected strength brought against discovered weakness. Not simply the deft wielding of power, but the actual discovery of power in a situation, an insight into decisive asymmetry. Cited in Krepenevich and Watts Regaining Strategic Competence 15
Sidney Winter: …strategy is about managing the slow-moving variables – the things that condition the options that actually appear in the course of history. Cited in Krepenevich and Watts Regaining Strategic Competence 15