Defense Policy Versus Strategy and Tactics

To outline the framework of what I am interested in examining (what is a progressive view on military affairs?), maybe I can start with a definition of terms. At this web site, I found an interesting figure to illustrate the basic process of military affairs:

Purpose/cause -> Policy -> Strategy -> Tactics -> Training/Doctrine

which I would change slightly to:

National Security Strategy -> Defense Policy -> Military Strategy -> Operations -> Doctrine/Training

The President releases the National Security Strategy to outline the U.S. goals and objectives in the engagement of international affairs. This document identifies where military power might be expected to be exercised in the course of pursuing these goals.

Surprisingly, there is no joint definition for "policy" in JP 1-02, the first place I look for DOD definitions. I couldn't find much help for a definition on the net at all to clarify this term, so I developed this one: Defense policy is a course of action or conduct, as defined by OSD, NSC, and other civilian leaders in the administration, intended to influence and determine decisions, actions, and other matters relating to the conduct of military affairs, consistent with the national security strategy. Policy can take the form of instructions, directives, and memorandums submitted through OSD to the defense agencies, Services, and combatant commands to guide them in the execution of defense efforts.

Military strategy is "the art of distributing and applying military means to fulfill the ends of policy" (Liddell Hart). This is where OSD and the Joint Staff, etc, work within the bounds of defense policy, given limited resources and parameters, to allocate military resources and develop plans to conduct military operations. This leads to the development of strategic operational plans, from which the services develop doctrine for their subordinate units.

Finally doctrine, as defined by JP 1-02, is "fundamental principles by which the military forces or elements thereof guide their actions in support of national objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgment in application." Doctrine is developed by the services to suggest a uniform and tested application of resources and personnel to successfully execute operational and tactical military operations. Doctrine is what military units should do in the field, as opposed to policy, how the military has to conduct its day-to-day operations.

Why this matters. I think the tendency for "left-right" discussions on military affairs tend to degenerate down to ad-hominy attacks on how the military fights - all war is evil and unnecessary versus "support our troops or leave America" discussions are the extremes. Nothing ticked me off more than watching Phil Donahue criticize how Army Rangers used ropes to rappel out of heliocopters during the Somali operation in 1993 (disclaimer, I was trapped in an auto repair shop, just happened to be what was on the tube). I thought, who the hell is he to criticize tested military tactics? Yet that's what too many left-right military debates focus on. Ideally, the execution of military operations and doctrine and tactics should be nonpartisan and clearly conducted in the interests of preserving American lives and equipment while accomplishing the stated objectives.

One would think that military strategy would also be nonpartisan. Certainly the military's slow recognition of and adaption to "fourth generation warfare", hampering its ability to successfully operate in modern conflicts, is a non-partisan issue. But given that (1) military strategy is directly driven by defense policy and (2) the services and defense agencies compete fiercely for defense dollars, there is ample room for partisan criticism directed at particular agendas and defense efforts. A service's transformation strategy, for instance, may sound very practical and non-partisan, but still be heavily influenced by partisan defense policy and a desire to advance particular acquisition efforts over the general good of the military's ability to operate jointly in combat operations.

So it's the defense policy and national security strategy that needs to be reviewed and critiqued, in any development of a "progressive view on military affairs." At the top level, one has to identify what the role of military power is and how it should be used. Is it true, for instance, that "we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage" as the Bush NSS states? What is the priority of missions that the military should attempt? Second, one has to review the defense policies developed to execute this strategy. This is not merely questions such as "should gays be in the military" but rather the fundamental questions such as how the U.S. military plans and executes its forces, how the military manages its people and resources, and other issues identified in the OSD Annual Report to Congress.

I can think of one improvement for the annual report right off the bat. I would love to see annual reports from the combatant commands rather than the three service secretaries. Congress wants to see the services' reports because that translates to acquisition programs and military bases. Wouldn't it be better to see what the guys in the field think?

Comments

[steve]

Sorry I am new to the blog and over a year late! Great compelling discussion. To answer your question, yes.

[minerva :)]

hi!! i just wanted to thank you, cause this thing was really helpful in understanding some thingsyou talk about... and also to write an essay for my gov't class...
my essay sucked, but that was becase i didnt put that nuch effort into it, but it would have sucked a whole lot more if it hadnt been for you, so thank you. really.