4
4
0
As a graduate of NDU, I expect more of its professors. The author complains the National DEFENSE Strategy is too militaristic (!) but then also complains about references to DIME and soft power. He uses name-calling and red-herring techniques throughout, deriding both Mattis and Clausewitz as inferior strategic thinkers, and demonstrating his own lack of self-awareness or humility. He complains about "The most dogmatic, tautological, egregiously unsubstantiated assertion..." but then does not provide substantive, fact-based counters to the priorities laid out in the NDS! I think Clausewitz' trinity of People, Government, and Army (Military) still holds true when balancing the competing interests and risks of a national defense strategy. I also think his characterization of war as a political, social and military phenomena, using (primarily) military means to achieve political ends, remains accurate today.
The National Defense Strategy Is No Strategy
Posted from defenseone.com
Strategy
National Defense University
Cold War
James Mattis
University
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
That was some task to slog through, but it evokes some interesting thoughts. To begin, I think it's bad-form to criticize overall strategic thought for being full of hyperbole by extensively using hyperbole. The author seems determined to insult, alienate, or shock... but to what aim, I'm still uncertain.
It may be an oversimplification, but I tend to view national defense strategies as falling into two "camps" based on pop-culture. There is the "Star Wars" strategy... and the "Star Trek" alternative. The "Star Wars" strategy is the one we've been operating under for some time; free states allied in opposition to dictatorships with global aims. The "Star Trek" model asserts that the end-game is a unified "Federation of Planets" leveraged against the occasional outlying "upstart" powers. A "Star Wars" strategist considers emerging "Empires" a real danger anytime instability, disorder, and unrest threaten the status quo. Quite oppositely, the "Star Trek" strategist bemoans a perpetually dis-unified system in which the real "enemies" are nationalism, state sovereignty, and ideological disparity.
Personally, I believe the "Star Wars" principle makes more sense, is more pragmatic, and more functional in the short term. What I (humbly) suggest the policy-masters consider is how easy it is for a "Rebellion" to become the "Empire"... and avoid the mistakes, overreach, and carelessness that can lead to it.
It may be an oversimplification, but I tend to view national defense strategies as falling into two "camps" based on pop-culture. There is the "Star Wars" strategy... and the "Star Trek" alternative. The "Star Wars" strategy is the one we've been operating under for some time; free states allied in opposition to dictatorships with global aims. The "Star Trek" model asserts that the end-game is a unified "Federation of Planets" leveraged against the occasional outlying "upstart" powers. A "Star Wars" strategist considers emerging "Empires" a real danger anytime instability, disorder, and unrest threaten the status quo. Quite oppositely, the "Star Trek" strategist bemoans a perpetually dis-unified system in which the real "enemies" are nationalism, state sovereignty, and ideological disparity.
Personally, I believe the "Star Wars" principle makes more sense, is more pragmatic, and more functional in the short term. What I (humbly) suggest the policy-masters consider is how easy it is for a "Rebellion" to become the "Empire"... and avoid the mistakes, overreach, and carelessness that can lead to it.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
0
0
0
Clauswetz Trinity can be applied to every war. Lets apply it to our war of independence::
- People: The Americans were passionate for freedom from the yoke of British rule.
- Military Genius: Despite fighting a superior force, our military won a war of attrition with the British.
- Government: The Continental Government supported the military and the people.
It is ludicrous to eschew a model without providing an alternative.
- People: The Americans were passionate for freedom from the yoke of British rule.
- Military Genius: Despite fighting a superior force, our military won a war of attrition with the British.
- Government: The Continental Government supported the military and the people.
It is ludicrous to eschew a model without providing an alternative.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google