Few words are as ubiquitous and amorphous as the word “strategy.? This has certainly been true regarding the U.S. response to ISIS. On September 10th, President Obama intended to present a clear strategy for combatting the terrorist group. In actuality, his speech illuminated two distinct approaches to strategy. The speech outlined what the president would like to have happen, but it also foreshadowed what is likely to happen.
In the U.S. military, the teaching of strategy has been profoundly influenced by a professor at the Army War College, Colonel Arthur Lykke, Jr. Lykke distilled strategy to a simple equation: Strategy = Ends + Means + Ways. In essence, the strategist identifies the overall goals or objectives (the “ends?), then takes the available resources, including personnel and equipment (the “means?) and develops concepts (the “ways?) that use these resources to accomplish the overall goals. This elegant formulation of strategy has been taught widely, and its influence was evident in the president’s speech.
President Obama was clear about the ends. “We will degrade and ultimately destroy? ISIS, he stated, and he went on to outline four ways to do this. First, he would order widespread and sustained airstrikes to attack ISIS, including in Syria. Second, the U.S. and other nations would offer support to groups who were combatting ISIS on the ground, including the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), the Kurdish Peshmerga, Syrian opposition groups, and Iraqi national guard units (possibly another name for Sunni paramilitary groups). Third, the U.S. would lead an international effort to counter ISIS through several counterterrorism measures, including strengthening homeland defenses, stemming the flow of recruits, cutting off funding, and countering the ideology that fuels the movement. Fourth, the United States would continue to provide humanitarian aid to civilians who had been displaced by ISIS activities. While the means of this strategy were not explicitly identified, it was clear that the United States would commit air forces and a small amount of ground personnel to the region. The president, however, explicitly stated that these ground forces would not have a combat mission. Therein lies the problem.
Seek and Destroy
When teaching students about strategy, Lykke used a simple metaphor: a good strategy is like a three-legged stool, with the legs representing the ends, ways, and means. If any leg is out of proportion to the others, the stool tilts off center. The more the stool is tilted, the greater the risk that the strategy will fail.
The word “destroy? has a specific meaning. Even if just one ISIS cell remains operational, the overall objective will not have been met.
The chief problem with the president’s anti-ISIS strategy is that the ends, ways, and means are out of proportion. Specifically, the ends are relatively unlimited—to destroy ISIS—while the means are quite limited. The word “destroy? has a specific meaning. Even if just one ISIS cell remains operational, the overall objective will not have been