Read on Twitter
& #39;Ends-Ways-Means& #39; makes for dull, complacent and weak ⌗strategy - here& #39;s why. Can it be saved? Maybe - here& #39;s how: https://mwi.usma.edu/beyond-ends-ways-and-means-we-need-a-better-strategic-framework-to-win-in-an-era-of-great-power-competition/">https://mwi.usma.edu/beyond-en... @WarInstitute
Particular thanks to Jason Gresh ( @GreshJp) and Seth Center ( @CSIS_PHS) for their detailed comments and reflections on an earlier draft of this paper. All mistakes, of course, are mine.
The three basic problems with & #39;Ends-Ways-Means& #39;, which was elucidated most clearly by Colonel Lykke in 1989, are that (1), it doesn& #39;t account properly for an enemy or adversary who wants to scupper your ideas; (2), it assumes there can be an & #39;End State& #39; - when really...
... there is no end, just a & #39;next phase& #39;. It is folly for war planners, or others who use this formula, to think the work is over when really it just changes. And (3), it is a formula, which means an adversary can work out how to disrupt it, and someone using it is beguiled...
... into thinking they don& #39;t need to think - just apply the formula.
Some of these issues can be remedied, though. First, by recognising & #39;end& #39; states must be inherently political, because politics persists (while conflict may not)...
Some of these issues can be remedied, though. First, by recognising & #39;end& #39; states must be inherently political, because politics persists (while conflict may not)...
Second, by using Problem Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA). Third, by accepting means are only a necessary factor, rarely sufficient on their own to generate success...
And fourth, by replacing strategy-by-numbers and formula-based thinking with a degree of art and human novelty.
Comments welcome, especially on the article itself but also on this thread.
Thank you (/Ends)
Comments welcome, especially on the article itself but also on this thread.
Thank you (/Ends)
