Jump to content

* * * * * 1 votes

Why is Strategy Important?

39 replies to this topic

#1 status - Rufus

status - Rufus
  • Guests

Posted 11 September 2019 - 06:03 PM

History gives us a chance to learn from mistakes.
War is a gamble based on strategy to achieve political success.
Skill and chance like poker and blackjack play a part.
Strategic analysis is key. Weighing the risk/reward factor always plays a large part. What are all the chains of cause and effect in each action?

Strategic theory helps to find a view of the overall picture. Before, during, and after the war. There's sort of a Hegelian feel to it. Reaction, tension, and resolution. Always, with a political objective in mind.

Case studies give strategic theory a wide range of political thought.

There is a difference between dangerous gambles and educated guesses.

Failures in strategic imagination are a root cause for negative resolution.  

The term strategy derives from the old Greek 'stategos'. This was the general in Athens. 'Strategoi' were also politicians. They had Political purpose with the power of military action in their hands. War is an interactive process; the enemy always gets a vote.

Doctrine and method can stifle the strategic imagination. Tactics provide clarity and predictability but, strategy involves lurking in foggy places, filled with friction, and relies on chance. Strategy also involves always reassessing and adapting to a situation. It forms the highest the levels of management.

  • 0

#2 status - Dr. Tarr

status - Dr. Tarr
  • Guests

Posted 11 September 2019 - 06:08 PM

:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:



  • 0

#3 status - Professor Fether

status - Professor Fether
  • Guests

Posted 11 September 2019 - 06:13 PM

Knowing the roll of each part in the ship is key.

Different leaders for different levels.

It's not just a matter of getting the dragons gold but also what comes after...


  • 0

#4 status - Rufus

status - Rufus
  • Guests

Posted 11 September 2019 - 06:19 PM

A case study...

What is the difference between Patton and Eisenhower?

Patton was great at tactics and getting into the blood and guts of it. Eisenhower had to deal with all the heads of state, their generals, his own generals, and all the other problems associated with organization and more.

..or a football analogy..

Quarterback and the Coach.


  • 0

#5 status - Rufus

status - Rufus
  • Guests

Posted 11 September 2019 - 06:25 PM

Tactics involve winning battles; Strategy involves winning the whole war.

The civil military nexus involves the interaction between civil politicians and the military. Deep State or beyond. A zone of influence to be sure.

The military is a subordinate instrument of policy. Wars always serve a political purpose and it is always filled with uncertainty and interaction.

There are no formulas to follow. Beware of theories. Mastery in tactics and science doesn't always assure overall victory. Objective analyses of your enemy is important. Intangibles always count, even if you don't see them. Know yourself and your enemy. Know the weather, know your terrain. Use it metaphorically to broaden the environment to achieve an end.


  • 0

#6 status - Guest

status - Guest
  • Guests

Posted 11 September 2019 - 06:29 PM

Know your roll and execute it.


  • 0

#7 status - Solutions Architect

status - Solutions Architect
  • Guests

Posted 11 September 2019 - 06:35 PM

We do Precision guess work based on unreliable data provided by those of questionable knowledge. :chuckle:

  • 0

#8 status - Guest

status - Guest
  • Guests

Posted 11 September 2019 - 06:40 PM

We do Precision guess work based on unreliable data provided by those of questionable knowledge. :chuckle:


Engineering is extra!


:Laughing-rolf: :Laughing-rolf:



  • 0

#9 status - Guest

status - Guest
  • Guests

Posted 11 September 2019 - 06:49 PM


  • 0

#10 status - Rufus

status - Rufus
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2019 - 01:49 PM

Using history is always a large process in critical analysis. Examining leaderships skills in the political landscape helps to flesh out theoretical strategy.

Remember, war always serves a political purpose. Whos purpose, and why?

Looking at Thucydides gives us a start in examining the lessons of the past.

What motivates a state to seek empire?

In the Peloponnesian War Athens was seeking to expand itself using economics as justification. Sparta saw the growth of Athens as a threat to their own well being. Both sides had a sense of fear, honor, and interest at stake.

Sparta, for all it's highly militarized way of life, were slow to war. They only fought when the objectives were great in value.

Athens had a massive sea presence. Their maritime endeavors are what made them rich. They used their Navy as sort of an imperial police force and started economic sanctions against many of Sparta allies.

The political ends of Athens were expansion. Sparta' objective was to dismantle the monopoly Athens had and to 'liberate' all the Greek city states from Athenian domination.

The political excuse made by Athens was to 'restore' the status quo of business through commerce and cultural expansion. And they started in with the sanctions over everything. They wanted to play the long game and thought the Spartans couldn't hold out economically.

Is it better to go directly at the enemies army? or is it better to hit them strategically using the indirect approach to attack alliances and business interests.

This is where adaptation and innovation come into play. One must think about the unpredictability factor. The longer a war lasts the more things tend to depend on accidents. This can be accounted for, in a way, by already having contingency plans in the can to implement once an opportunistic event presents itself.

The History of the Peloponnesian War

By Thucydides

Written 431 B.C.E

Translated by Richard Crawley



  • 0

Reply to this topic


Similar Topics Collapse

IPB Skin By Virteq