Author Topic: The Roots of Bad Strategy  (Read 220 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 166,665
The Roots of Bad Strategy
« on: September 14, 2023, 05:45:29 pm »
The Roots of Bad Strategy
M.L.R. Smith - Australian War College
 
Jarrod Morris - https://www.dvidshub.net/image/1724178, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=40184101
To cite this article:
Smith, M.L.R., “The Roots of Bad Strategy,” Military Strategy Magazine, Volume 9, Issue 1, summer 2023, pages 10-18.
M.L.R. Smith is Academic Principal of the Australian War College, Canberra. Formerly he was Head of the Department of War Studies, King’s College, University of London.

Over the previous three decades of teaching strategic theory, I have inquired of many a tutorial group as to what should be considered ‘good strategy’. From the outset the students proceed to tick off numerous markers of good strategy: the ability to achieve goals; attaining values and outcomes that are meaningful; maximising interests; accomplishing aims as efficiently as possible; evaluating the costs and benefits of different courses of action; balancing risk and reward; gaining an appreciation of the adversary; assessing one’s own strengths and limitations; arriving at an outcome better than where one began; knowing when to stop.

There is no obvious way of distilling these level-headed observations except to infer that the essence of good strategy is premised upon the principle of proportionality. This begs the question: what is proportionality? Proportionality, my students deduce, connotes weighing up the balance of advantages relative to disadvantages; gauging the value of one’s goals and the price one might be willing to pay to achieve them; the willingness to modify, change or abandon certain aims or behaviours if one is not getting what one wants through a chosen course of action.

Acting with prudence might also be another way of describing the principle of proportionality. A prudential attitude is not a recipe for inaction. Neither does it mean that one cannot take risks. It does suggest, however, that those risks are calculated, are not undertaken rashly but are sufficiently thought through. They are also premised on the preparedness to ask searching questions about why and with what intent one is embarking on a course of action, and crucially, is it likely to be worth it?

https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/the-roots-of-bad-strategy/
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Thomas Jefferson