[GK3]

Goose,
I rarely see any points in your comments where I would disagree, but to say that Strategic thinking is not affected by political thinking is simply not true. I am of the opinion that politics plays a of immense proportions role in our final strategic thinking.  Our military comes up with strategic plans but they are indeed affected by our political thinking.  Is that good, probably not.  If the political thinkers are convinced that there are WMD in Country x then our strategic plans involve those weapons whether or not they exist.  I can only say that I have strong reasons to believe that the thinking in Washington has a great impact on the strategic planning of our military, whether they believe it or not. As far as the Ukraine goes, our political thinking will absolutely control our strategic thinking in that regard.

I agree with almost all of the above. I think the issue may be the definition of "political". Perhaps I wasn't clear. My point was that I have tried to ensure that MY criticisms of "the administration" were not driven by my political opinions (which candidates I support) and was strictly directed at the strategic problems caused by what I believed were "failures" in execution. I do however separate strategic decisions made by politicians from "political thinking" and "political biases".

The country is lead by an elected president. He is a politician. That doesn't mean that all or most of his thinking is "political" in nature (or at least in the past it didn't). FDR believed Germany was a serious threat to the US. That had next to nothing to do with politics. In fact it was not politically popular. FDR could have just shut up about it. Politically, that would have been the "right thing to do". He didn't. He tried to "lead" the country to share his understanding. He made decisions that were politically unpopular to aid Britain. It turns out history proved him right.

Some might argue that certain presidents have be affected by what is perceived by their political opponents as a political bias. The assertion that "Well, FDR thought that way because he was a Democrat" existed. It is often true that members of a given political party as a group view the international situation differently than members of other political parties. However, it may be (or at least in the past was) individuals join a particular party because of what they think rather than visa-versa. IMO a "political decision" would be intervening in Ukraine because you thought it would be politically popular and get you votes. I don't think we did that. There are examples in US history of going to war because it was "popular", particularly the Mexican War and the Spanish-American war. It was true that after Pearl Harbor, declaring war was politically popular. That is not IMO why FDR did so :-).

It is also true that the appointed members of the executive branch usually share the view of the president regarding the international scene. Presidents tend to appoint like-minded people in order to accomplish what "needs to be done". The appointed members tend to promote staff that agree with them. These staff are not directly political appointments, but there is a selection "bias". The saying is that all presidents get the CIA they want. It usually takes about 2 years to make that happen :-). There is no doubt that administrations become an echo chamber to some large extent.

I therefore do not agree that our political thinking controls our strategic thinking. The thinking of our president, who is a politician, can and should drive our strategic thinking. That thinking is undoubtedly influenced by the philosophy of the president and the like-minded people he appoints. It should not however be based on what is "popular" and will get him re-elected. In short, it is not "political". The president is also responsible for choosing a strategic approach that will accomplish his goals and that can be executed. The latter part does certainly involve politics. He has to bring the American people along with him. If they are already there, no problem. If he can't "bring them along", a different strategy must be chosen. The part of the administration that is ostensibly "non-political" does need to deliver the full range of strategies that they think are workable. It is up to the politicians to choose (and modify) the one that will work.

Whatever strategy is chosen, the administration has to have a plan to get and keep the American people onboard. That may be easy in the beginning when the sacrifices and downsides are not so obvious. The opposition parties may also be keeping quiet for political reasons. None of those positive circumstances will persist, and the administration needs to have a plan for that eventuality. If the administration doubts it can ensure that situation, it needs a different strategy. OTOH, once a strategy is launched, it is imperative that the "political" side of that strategy succeed. IMO the latter is in deep trouble at present.

I agree with almost all, except the part about politics and strategic thinking. It has nothing to do with what party you belong to wants but what the people at the top believe and want.  Long ago, far away in another galaxy, I was told, face to face by a three star that the intelligence report my unit had put together was contrary to what the NCA wanted to hear and I was to withdraw it.  Your point about the fact that it is imperative that the "political" side of the strategy succeed is probably by far the most important comment in all of this.  Too often it doesn't turn out the way the political side wanted. Too often the political side in office won't listen to those with differing opinions. Human nature makes tough decisions even tougher.

[GK3]

Goose,
I rarely see any points in your comments where I would disagree, but to say that Strategic thinking is not affected by political thinking is simply not true. I am of the opinion that politics plays a of immense proportions role in our final strategic thinking.  Our military comes up with strategic plans but they are indeed affected by our political thinking.  Is that good, probably not.  If the political thinkers are convinced that there are WMD in Country x then our strategic plans involve those weapons whether or not they exist.  I can only say that I have strong reasons to believe that the thinking in Washington has a great impact on the strategic planning of our military, whether they believe it or not. As far as the Ukraine goes, our political thinking will absolutely control our strategic thinking in that regard.

I agree with almost all of the above. I think the issue may be the definition of "political". Perhaps I wasn't clear. My point was that I have tried to ensure that MY criticisms of "the administration" were not driven by my political opinions (which candidates I support) and was strictly directed at the strategic problems caused by what I believed were "failures" in execution. I do however separate strategic decisions made by politicians from "political thinking" and "political biases".

The country is lead by an elected president. He is a politician. That doesn't mean that all or most of his thinking is "political" in nature (or at least in the past it didn't). FDR believed Germany was a serious threat to the US. That had next to nothing to do with politics. In fact it was not politically popular. FDR could have just shut up about it. Politically, that would have been the "right thing to do". He didn't. He tried to "lead" the country to share his understanding. He made decisions that were politically unpopular to aid Britain. It turns out history proved him right.

Some might argue that certain presidents have be affected by what is perceived by their political opponents as a political bias. The assertion that "Well, FDR thought that way because he was a Democrat" existed. It is often true that members of a given political party as a group view the international situation differently than members of other political parties. However, it may be (or at least in the past was) individuals join a particular party because of what they think rather than visa-versa. IMO a "political decision" would be intervening in Ukraine because you thought it would be politically popular and get you votes. I don't think we did that. There are examples in US history of going to war because it was "popular", particularly the Mexican War and the Spanish-American war. It was true that after Pearl Harbor, declaring war was politically popular. That is not IMO why FDR did so :-).

It is also true that the appointed members of the executive branch usually share the view of the president regarding the international scene. Presidents tend to appoint like-minded people in order to accomplish what "needs to be done". The appointed members tend to promote staff that agree with them. These staff are not directly political appointments, but there is a selection "bias". The saying is that all presidents get the CIA they want. It usually takes about 2 years to make that happen :-). There is no doubt that administrations become an echo chamber to some large extent.

I therefore do not agree that our political thinking controls our strategic thinking. The thinking of our president, who is a politician, can and should drive our strategic thinking. That thinking is undoubtedly influenced by the philosophy of the president and the like-minded people he appoints. It should not however be based on what is "popular" and will get him re-elected. In short, it is not "political". The president is also responsible for choosing a strategic approach that will accomplish his goals and that can be executed. The latter part does certainly involve politics. He has to bring the American people along with him. If they are already there, no problem. If he can't "bring them along", a different strategy must be chosen. The part of the administration that is ostensibly "non-political" does need to deliver the full range of strategies that they think are workable. It is up to the politicians to choose (and modify) the one that will work.

Whatever strategy is chosen, the administration has to have a plan to get and keep the American people onboard. That may be easy in the beginning when the sacrifices and downsides are not so obvious. The opposition parties may also be keeping quiet for political reasons. None of those positive circumstances will persist, and the administration needs to have a plan for that eventuality. If the administration doubts it can ensure that situation, it needs a different strategy. OTOH, once a strategy is launched, it is imperative that the "political" side of that strategy succeed. IMO the latter is in deep trouble at present.

I agree with almost all, except the part about politics and strategic thinking. It has nothing to do with what party you belong to wants but what the people at the top believe and want.  Long ago, far away in another galaxy, I was told, face to face by a three star that the intelligence report my unit had put together was contrary to what the NCA wanted to hear and I was to withdraw it.  Your point about the fact that it is imperative that the "political" side of the strategy succeed is probably by far the most important comment in all of this.  Too often it doesn't turn out the way the political side wanted. Too often the political side in office won't listen to those with differing opinions. Human nature makes tough decisions even tougher.