'Ends-Ways-Means' makes for dull, complacent and weak ⌗strategy - here's why. Can it be saved? Maybe - here'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/ @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 'Ends-Ways-Means', which was elucidated most clearly by Colonel Lykke in 1989, are that (1), it doesn't account properly for an enemy or adversary who wants to scupper your ideas; (2), it assumes there can be an 'End State' - when really...

... there is no end, just a 'next phase'. 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't need to think - just apply the formula.

Some of these issues can be remedied, though. First, by recognising 'end' 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)