Strategy

Derived from the ancient Greek “strategos,” strategy was seen at the time as the art that is practiced by a general. As time passed, this discipline that works to pair tactics with the meeting of an objective through a number of different principles, developed into a field of “grand plans” in the time of the Napoleonic Wars. Whereas some texts will place strategy in a triumvirate with tactics and logistics, I feel that proper tactics and logistics are inclusive of a good strategy.

In my view, strategy formulation is the epitome of all great feats, as it perfectly pairs the science of any particular branch of study with the art form of creative resolutions and applications of specific tactics. The ability to harness the power of strategy empowers an individual—whether they are the lowliest “private on the battlefield” or a CEO in a boardroom—to control the fate of any given situation to their liking.

The formulation of strategy is going to be formulated greatly based on one’s continuing interactions with their environment: Observations, predispositions, traditions, cultures, and any number of other influences acting on the system that you are in. In this respect, a foundation of knowledge in the study of systems from science and mathematics is a strong ally. For instance, military strategy has been closely related to the field of game theory since it’s inception in the past decades: A field of applied mathematics which attempts to predict and control the outcome of serious interactions between intelligent parties.

Aside from environment, schools of thought regarding strategy seem to agree on a finite number of principles that make for a good strategy. These are, listed in no particular order, are:

1. Objective


2. Offense


3. Simplicity


4. Surprise


5. Concentration


6. Economy of force


7. Maneuver


8. Cooperation


9. Security

1. Objective: The objective is what a strategist must always keep in sight. Regardless of anything else, this is the entire reason for everything else. In extreme circumstances, the situation might even call for “the ends justifying the means,” in the words of Machiavelli. We’ll get to him later, though.

2. Offense: General George S. Patton was made famous, in part by his maxim that an
army is always on the offense—that is, to be on the attack and moving towards the
objective. This differs from the defense which is the prevention of one’s opponent
conquering land or other assets over you.

3. Simplicity: Another maxim from Patton’s playbook, the General liked to play by three
simple rules: Speed, simplicity, boldness. Simple plans are easier to execute throughout
the ranks, and even with one’s own self. The ability to achieve success in a given
situation may be directly proportional to the complexity of a plan—the simpler, the
better.

4. Surprise: The ability to catch an opponent off-guard, when they’re not looking, when
and where they least expect it…this is the element of surprise. Although the enemy may
have strong points and weak points, the element of surprise will add a positive coefficient
to the success potential of any offensive measure taken.

5. Concentration: This is linked strongly to economy of force, but differs enough to be
considered a separate measure in strategy formulation. Concentration of force,
generally speaking, is having the right forces in the right places. As (U.S.) Civil War
General Nathan Bedford Forrest once said, “get there the firstest with the
mostest.” This statement illustrates the importance of the previous two portions of
strategy formulation: Surprise and concentration.

6. Economy of force: When determining the full value of the forces to be utilized in an
operation, the strategist must realize that not all types of resources are created
equal: From a military standpoint, artillery and infantry—both combat arms
forces—have different effects, and therefore different values, on the battlefield. To this
same end, they are best utilized against different aspects of the opponent’s forces. The
value of a particular asset is one value at rest, and varying values in different situations.

7. Maneuver: As forces have different economic values based on situation, this factor is
also influenced by how they are maneuvered—utilized as an offensive or defensive
asset—against the opponent. Maneuvering takes terrain (actually or metaphorically)
and other environmental variables into great account in their formulation.

8. Cooperation: As assets are being maneuvered about the battlefield, the interactions that
they have with each other should be taken into account. As another military example
would indicate: If you have infantry in a firefight and in direct contact with an enemy,
you will not want to utilize a Multiple-Launched Rocket System (MLRS) that could have
devastating effects against the enemy—and the friendly infantry.

9. Security: Militarily termed “force protection,” this also includes intelligence &
counter-intelligence activities. Security aims to protect and maintain friendly
assets—forces and otherwise—as well as any competitive advantages that the
strategist has against their enemy.

Strategy is what wins a war. Wars are a series of battles which are won by tactics. Tactics are comprised of a series of drills. Drills are a discrete series of repetitive movements that can be mastered by an individual or a team thereof: This where tactics fall into the continuum of the individual fighting towards an objective.

Finally, then, one must look at the support functions necessary to win a war. I will break this down as the U.S. Army has for several years:

1. Human resources and administration


2. Security and intelligence


3. Operations and training


4. Logistics and maintenance


5. Civil (and political) affairs


6. Communications and information management


7. Joint operations


8. Resource management

Next I’ll start piecing everything together in order to formulate a successful strategy.