Defining Military Strategy

Colonel Arthur F. Lykke Jr. 's pragmatic definition of is as current today as it was when his article led the May 1989 issue of Military Review. Lykke's model remains the basis for instruction at the US Army War College. Interestingly, our records show that Military Review rejected this same article in March 1981. According to Lykke, the editors felt an article on would be inappropriate for students at the Army's senior tactical school WHAT IS MILITARY STRATEGY? In ancient Greece, it was the of the general. In its glossary of terms, the US Army War College lists eight definitions of strategy. This highlights the first of many problems in the study of this important but complex subject. There is no universal definition or even the approximation of consensus. Today the term strategy is used altogether too loosely. Some call line drawn on map strategy. Others believe laundry list of national objectives represents strategy. problem is not just semantics; it is one of effectively and competently using one of the most essential tools of the profession. In trying to decide between alternative strategies, we are often faced with comparison of apples and oranges, because the choices do not address the same factors. Only with mutual understanding of what comprises can we hope to improve our strategic dialogue. There needs to be general agreement on conceptual approach to strategy: definition, description of the basic elements that make up and an analysis of how they are related. For the purpose of this discussion, we will use the definition approved by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff: The art and science of employing the armed forces of nation to secure the objectives of national policy by the application of force or the threat of force.1 During visit to the US Army War College in 1981, General Maxwell D. Taylor characterized 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 basis for the formulation of any type strategy-military, political, economic and so forth, depending upon the element of national power employed. We should not confuse with national (grand) strategy, which may be defined as: The art and science of developing and using the political, economic and psychological powers of nation, together with its armed forces, during peace and war, to secure national objectives.2 Military is [only] one part of this allencompassing national strategy. component of our national is sometimes referred to as national strategy-military at its higher level and differentiated from operational strategies used as the basis for planning and operations. Military must support national and comply with national policy, which is defined as a broad course of action or statements of guidance adopted by the government at the national level in pursuit of national objectives.3 In turn, national policy is influenced by the capabilities and limitations of strategy. With our general concept of as guidestrategy equals ends plus ways plus means-we can develop an approach to strategy. Ends can be expressed as objectives. Ways are concerned with the various methods of applying force. In essence, this becomes an examination of courses of action designed to achieve the objective. These courses of action are termed military strategic concepts. Means refers to the resources (manpower, materiel, money, forces, logistics and so forth) required to accomplish the mission. This leads us to the conclusion that equals objectives plus strategic concepts plus resources. …