Set the policy and let the generals fight the war some have said. There has been a negative perception that political influence in war is wrong. Expressed this way, it is political leaders, who must influence the direction of war. Historical and contemporary examples are woven throughout to support this argument.Īnalyzing On War, Brodie describes Clausewitz’s desire of statesmen to understand the language of war to ensure its proper execution. This article argues the relevance and critical relationship of Carl von Clausewitz’s theory of war with Cohen’s unequal dialogue to illustrate how a republic can create an environment where strategy emerges from the interactive participation of its leaders. The dialogue across the national security apparatus is both essential and, purposefully, unequal. In the U.S., elected leaders solicit input across the interagency and the military to determine the nation’s ends, but ultimately, civilians make the final decision. What has been described as an “unequal dialogue” is a quintessential factor in developing strategic ends (i.e., a nation’s policy). Strategy remains the mediating implement to connect national instrument (diplomatic, military, informational, economic) objectives to political ends. Policy frames objectives, but the constant interplay of myriad forces create strategy. Strategy formulation requires the full engagement and involvement of political authority to bound policy effectively. “At the summit, true strategy and politics are one.”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |