In Your Strategy Needs
a Strategy the authors propose four main ways of thinking about strategy:
Classic, Adaptive, Shaping and Visionary. Many of the strategies in this
article can be found in wartime. What if the US had known about these different
strategies? Did they employ the correct one(s)? The following is an exploration
of these four strategies within the context of US military history.
Vietnam
At the outset of the Vietnam conflict the US was using a
Classic strategy, based largely on experiences in WWII, which worked by all
objective standards. The US won every battle.1 However, Vietnamese
forces were able to outlast the US by constantly replenishing troops, moving
around frequently, and regaining ground that was taken by the US.
As the conflict grew worse the US was using more Visionary
strategy insofar as Vietnamese troop movement was somewhat predictable, and the
US was employing new tactics like using helicopters to bomb certain areas and
move troops around, which changed the battle methodology.2 Unfortunately
the helicopter bombings didn’t allow the US to hold the ground they took. The
US might have fared better if they employed a Shaping strategy – by being
willing to admit that the war theater was not only changeable but also
unpredictable they could have gained advantage over Vietnamese troops instead
of letting them repeatedly exhaust US resources and will to fight.
WWII
Throughout WWII the overarching strategy of the allies was
to first concentrate on defeating Germany and then concentrate on Japan.3
This is also a Classical approach, which worked well for the allies. The allies
also used aspects of a Visionary strategy, by working closely together at large
meetings like the Casablanca conference to plan strategy, troop movement, and
coordinated bombings, whereas the Germans and the Japanese acted independently
of one another.4 The argument can also be made that the US employed one
extremely shrewd Adaptive tactic during WWII, which was to quickly relieve
unsuccessful generals from their commands. This iterative approach to command enabled
the US to be highly effective at a rapid pace. Being quick and effective was
important, since the Germans and Japanese were betting that we could not fight
a long, protracted war.
The Revolutionary War
The British had very predictable Classical tactics – to
divide and conquer America. The Colonists employed Visionary strategy based on the
predictability of the British Empire. This was one of the first wars where
guerrilla tactics were used by Colonial soldiers – fighting from the trees and engaging
enemies in the woods versus marching out into a field.
Had the Colonists stuck to a Classical strategy, the British might have had an easier time defeating the them, particularly given that they were on a shoestring budget against the richest empire in the world at the time.
Had the Colonists stuck to a Classical strategy, the British might have had an easier time defeating the them, particularly given that they were on a shoestring budget against the richest empire in the world at the time.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.