What are the consequences of using a plethora of nonmilitary objectives and instruments in modern conflicts for strategy’s role as a link between policy and implementation in operational theaters? Does the military end up leading from the center due to its well-tested and detailed planning procedures while being only one actor out of many in terms of the objectives and instruments devised in the campaign plans for theaters such as Iraq and Afghanistan? Politicians working in a reality of bargaining and policies determined by the lowest common denominator are increasingly micromanaging the tactical battles, in practice often becoming co-leaders at this level. Military leaders working in an environment characterized by methodical evaluation within closed military circles that follow strict military logic tend to influence overall political visions. In modern conflicts, involving both civil and military challenges and solutions, both politicians and military leaders venture far into the sphere of the other party. Strategy must allow the politicians sufficient control of the direction of the conflict and coordinate the efforts while leaving the military and civilian agencies sufficient space for action.
- Introduction
- Liselotte Odgaard (Forfatter) - Institut for StrategiVilliam Krüger-Klausen (Forfatter) - Ministry of Defence, Denmark
- Liselotte Odgaard (Redaktør)
- Strategy in NATO: Preparing for an Imperfect World, pp.1-10
- Governance, Security and Development
- Palgrave Macmillan; New York
- 1
- Institute for Strategy and War Studies
- English
- Book chapter
- YES
- 2014
- 13738204X; 9781137382054
- https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137382054_1
- https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137382054
- 13738204X; 9781137382054