[August 26, 2017] In the run-up to the U.S. presidential election last year, candidate Donald Trump said on several occasions that America should pull out of Afghanistan. Earlier this week, during a prime-time address to the nation, now-president Trump announced a new strategy to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Studying how strategy is made and its component parts has value for those who desire to learn lessons from senior leaders. Is this a new strategy, is it a strategy at all, and does it differ from past-president Obama’s strategy? These are questions for those who study leadership because understanding the difference in strategy, tactics, and operational level planning helps add value. Two years ago I criticized Obama’s “strategy” for not actually being a strategy in the true sense of the term (see my comments here). That is why I address this issue today.
To answer the first question (Is this a new strategy?) means that we must address it at face value; whether it meets the long-standing standards for being a strategy. In other words, is the “strategy” understood by all, is there an ends-ways-means linkage, does it comprehensively include economic, information, and diplomatic components, and does it work? Trump and his Defense and State Departments are keeping much of the details secret (as they should) so it makes judging it as a valid strategy a difficult proposition.
That doesn’t mean that we cannot make comment on the public version recently announced. From what can be determined is that the “strategy” is a modification of Obama’s strategy with some significant improvements. Others will argue that it is, in fact, “new” and should be judged based on that fact. For our discussion here, whether it is a new strategy or a modification is irrelevant. More important a question remains … does it work (of course that must remain unanswered for the time being).
So we will step back to another question, a crucial part that must be answered, and that is whether the strategy is well understood by all. I’m sure the U.S. military has done a thorough scrub of the strategy (both public and secret parts) and have ensured they understand it as well as possessing the means to accomplish it. The American public must also understand the strategy to “win” in Afghanistan and agree with its major parts. For the American public, I’m not sure, that has yet to happen. This is very relevant because any strategy must be presented clearly and simply for the public to fully understand it and give it their blessing.
Trump’s “new strategy” lacks elements that lead to the failure of Obama’s strategy. For example, there are no timetables or troops levels announced by Trump.1 That is only the right thing to do. Putting information out to the public about timetables and troop levels is folly at its best and demonstrates a disregard for the U.S. military and lack of seriousness to accomplish any strategy.
This new presidential strategy is not grand strategy, nor is it based on any grand strategy, and that in itself is not reassuring. It is not grand strategy because it does not address the overriding problem of Islamic extremism, incorporate how the rest of the world plays into that strategy, or address the material and human resources required from the United States.
The debate over grand strategy is on-going at the national level in many political circles but the arguments are piecemeal. What is not happening is an open debate with public input and that could be a big mistake.
[Don’t forget to “Like” the Leader Maker at our Facebook Page.]
——————-