Not sure I agree with “It’s Time to End the Tyranny of Ends, Ways, and Means”.
For me, professional narcissism occurs when a strategist primarily focuses on achieving the desired ends through the assumed successful use of the means at this exposal with little consideration for the ways. Ways is where I believe a strategist considers the strategic environment in a holistic manner; which includes the adversary, interaction with the adversary, as well as all applicable international and domestic trends which may effect the ways in which the strategist attempts to apply his means to achieve his desired ends. The adversary always has a vote in how smoothly a strategy plays out, as do many of your own allies and partners who may have an overall equal goal as you but with a few different nuances (their own national interests).
Tom, I think we agree here a lot more than disagree - for me, it's less about the format (I could be persuaded there's nothing wrong with talking ends/ways/means/risk) - the sin's more about the slavish insistence on what's become a rigid formula that nearly never includes the adversary (let alone, as you note, allies). You mention those considerations should always be baked into the EWMR cake - I agree - but to my eye most of the time they're not baked in at all. Thanks for the note!
I am currently reading Military Orientalism; Eastern War Through Western Eyes by Patric Porter. It discusses the influence culture has on strategizing and how it is often neglected to the strategist’s peril. I believe it totally supports your point.
Matt,
Not sure I agree with “It’s Time to End the Tyranny of Ends, Ways, and Means”.
For me, professional narcissism occurs when a strategist primarily focuses on achieving the desired ends through the assumed successful use of the means at this exposal with little consideration for the ways. Ways is where I believe a strategist considers the strategic environment in a holistic manner; which includes the adversary, interaction with the adversary, as well as all applicable international and domestic trends which may effect the ways in which the strategist attempts to apply his means to achieve his desired ends. The adversary always has a vote in how smoothly a strategy plays out, as do many of your own allies and partners who may have an overall equal goal as you but with a few different nuances (their own national interests).
Tom, I think we agree here a lot more than disagree - for me, it's less about the format (I could be persuaded there's nothing wrong with talking ends/ways/means/risk) - the sin's more about the slavish insistence on what's become a rigid formula that nearly never includes the adversary (let alone, as you note, allies). You mention those considerations should always be baked into the EWMR cake - I agree - but to my eye most of the time they're not baked in at all. Thanks for the note!
I am currently reading Military Orientalism; Eastern War Through Western Eyes by Patric Porter. It discusses the influence culture has on strategizing and how it is often neglected to the strategist’s peril. I believe it totally supports your point.