A lot of what passes for strategizing today is nothing more than the recitation of leading indicators.
This stuff gets passed around a lot on the web as "strategic insight," but it's not--really.
You don't change strategy on this basis, you adjust operations and tactics. Leading indicators give you body readings, which may make you slow down or speed up the chemo, but it's not like you change the oncology diagnosis on that basis or the overall strategy of treatment.
A lot of people simply don't get this, and thus run around like chickens with their heads cut off--in large part because this stuff gets packaged up and peddled so incessantly as the "inside dope."
But if you try to follow this stuff like it's serious strategy, all you're gonna end up doing is chasing trends, market peaks, fads, etc. You'll be a consistent responder to environmental stimulae, but that's not exactly control, and it sure as hell ain't more than paddling withthe current, so forget about any real steering.
Grand strategy, to me, is more than taking advantage of sales opportunities or sufficiently defending your portfolio--however defined. It's about the creation and shaping of markets, not the skillful exploitation of their churn.
And in the security realm, it's not enough to focus on closing windows and locking doors (eliminating the dark side), it's gotta be about creating new structures, new formats, new neighborhoods. Talking up "black globalization" is fine. Addressing it is good. But grand strategy is about dealing with force, not mopping the friction. It's about making the elephant go where you want, not scooping his droppings.
Most of the latter is done by the private sector anyway, with the cure for marginal or bad connectivity being more mainstream and regulated connectivity (duh!). Lots of these indicators are found in that process, meaning, when you track them, you're effectively steering by your wake.
The grand strategist wants to be about the force, while accounting for the friction. But just tracking the friction reduces you to constant Chicken Little'ling...
| Permalink |
Comments (4)
I don't agree.
Sometimes, go with the flow is a perfectly valid strategy. If the curent environment is conducive to the outcomes desired, why be about changing it?
My favorite definition of "strategy" is the selection of engagements. This also encompasses deciding not to engage. Where, when and with what are the tactical decisions.
Grand straegy is simply the same but on the macro scale and includes the engagement by what may be non-traditional or parallel efforts such as a diplomatic overture to a wartime opponent, or a trade agreement in exchange some other "pro quo."
And again, it can very well be a passive grand strategy, either maintaining a status quo, or simply chosing not to engage.
Posted by RTO Trainer | February 25, 2007 5:54 AM
That's not actually a disagreement with my post, RTO. I think you're just so used to disagreeing with everything I write (raising the question of why you visit) that you felt the need to state that in the preamble.
You're a solid Bush supporter, and you don't like my criticism of his choices in recent months, so you argue the utility of passivity for right now, which is a valid choice I did not discuss in the post (hence the lack of disagreement).
The problem I have with passivity (and this is the part you can disagree with) is that it constitutes abandonment of the reasons underlying the Big Bang strategy in the first place. The region is simply too much in flux now and too important to too many outside players for us to expect that our passivity will result in the same from others. So, in effect, our non-action is a signal to others that their action is either to be tolerated by choice or accepted as unstoppable.
When you're the biggest player and you do this, you have to accept the outcomes then without complaint, because you can't destroy the past and then expect interested third parties not to step in with their own version of a future just because your incompetency creates a profound tie-down effect, your only answer to which is to promote problem enlargement (which no one wants given your track record).
When you're Leviathan, you either create on that basis or you get out of the way in a global security environment where rising powers exist across the dial.
But to me, that's the whole danger right now with this increasingly incapacitated Bush post-presidency.
Posted by Tom Barnett | February 25, 2007 1:11 PM
RTO,
I'm not sure where your comment is actually a disagreement with his comments. If the flow goes the way you want, great, but what if it isn't? And is the difference always that obvious?
Posted by Michael | February 25, 2007 1:15 PM
Why I visit: You only get better at chess by playing opponents better than yourself. I hope that's sufficient answer.
I'm sorry if I missed the point. It appeared to me that the argument being made was one in favor of a constant dynamism. Not my intent to annoy or to waste anyone's time.
Posted by RTO Trainer | February 25, 2007 3:40 PM