Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
181121 Apollo Strategy and Strategic Thinking: An American Perspective on…
181121 Apollo Strategy and Strategic Thinking: An American Perspective on the Future: VTC Mahnken
profession
peacetime
problems of peacetime planning
changes (geo political & mil/change) without anything to test (history only tells you about the last)
plus
political & interactive natire
fog of peace
only in war you find out how effective preparations are
so what is the character of the new war
so
who will be the adversary
but logic of geography/geopolitics
where will the war occur
geography
when will it occur?
effects force posture, strategy
why will it occur
difficult to determine
characterised by the war'
how will it unfold
strategy can help
only practice profession periodically
one war
tell you things abour one proponent
and only certain things about other proponents
strategy & strategic thought
strategy: is about how to array limited resources in space & time to achieve your aims against a competitor (Mahnken defn)
Planning is about how to array limited resources in space & time to achieve your aims
so strategy is about competition
influenced by context
short wars: you fight with existing military (the army you have not what you wished you have)
notn of a bet
protracted wars
material dimensions becomes more important
opportunity to build new things, retire old
USN in Pacific War
can lay new bets (if you survive)
peacetime: economics is more important
competitive strategies
militaries tend to be biased
worse case planning
but
leads to an exaggerated view of competitors & underview on strengths
focus on our weaknesses & enemy strengths
so need a balance view
considerations to inform and execute a strategy
need a concrete and sophisticated opponent
organised, routines, doctrine
need to understand competitor
took decades with USSR
each side has constrained choices
easy with self but often don't consider oppoent
should account for time & make it a virtue
more challenging for democracies
account for interaction over time & make a virtue
concepts
at least three moves
learn about competitor through interaction
likely to be sustained
read
'What would be the character of a new war'? League of Nations
strategy in peacetime
seek limited aims
to change a decision making calculus
uses military assets
latent UoF to coerce or deter
so what to conceal or what to show
revealing may achieve effects
greater degree of uncertainty
tolerance for risk is lower
longer to determine the effects of strategy on war
families of strategy
make be used in combination
denial
convinces success is impossible
cost imposition
cost out of proportion of gains
attacking opponents strategy
force them to challenge the assumptions of their strategy
eg CH A2/CD
attack political system
sow doubts so will abandon political aims
measures of effectiveness
options
good strategy should be buying increased options while constraining competitors options
costs
good strategy will impose costs on competitor and will prevent costs being imposed on us
momentum
who is reacting to whom
who controls the pace and scope of the competition
caveats
don't come nature (esp democracies)
so
need to identify enduring strenghts and weakness
difficult in a democracy
develop capabilities for peacetime competition
and warfighting
plan for interaction
and the unexpected
Q&A
who determines at war?
conceptual
we already have a tool kit
deal with covert as covert
cyber in war v war generally
if not war what do we call it?
if it goes beyond competition but short of competition
what constitute a cyber act of war?
some obvious, some are not
consider what must be sovereign capabilities and what can come from allies?
eg information / global supply chain
consider how we can cooperate
ie we need seek concrete areas to cooperate how do we deter the PLA(N) in the SCS
CH strategy has been to undermine US assumptions
initially land based air which CH countered by missles
now subsurface Tomahawk & long range bombers
now carrier based air which CH countered by long range cruise missle
bottom line is denial - too costly to support Taiwan
have been it costly
US response
attack CH strategy
so how to test CH dominance in near seas / how to pressure maritime flanks
how can we raise cost of maritime expansion to make CH focus on continental matters
US is approaching a consensus (politically) over CH
attacks on political system
Trump
if allies are not assured, they will not be assured for many reasons
but in AS/US alliance
shared values
shared interests
cultural and instituitional connections
personal relationships (at all levels) matter a lot
allies will look at allies (esp US) differently than competitors
notion allies may pay attention to the body language rather than the actions