Emily Meierding, James J. Wirtz & Jeffrey A. Larsen
What is “Strategic?”
In the realm of strategy, the word “strategic,” carries many meanings. It suggests that events, actions, or ideas are potentially life-changing, risky, critical, dangerous, or significantly more important than everyday matters. It is a word that evokes an emotional response, setting a context for what follows. It is used in relation to more than just the “ends, ways, and means” of strategy, or the “strategy bridge” that links the people, the government, and the military together when it comes to using force to achieve political objectives.[i] Indeed, Colin Gray himself mused about the way people employed the word “strategic,” that is, as “a heavyweight term implying relatively high importance, relating to something allegedly Big!” He also observed that, “When thus used without linguistic discipline the concept loses all value and hinders intelligent debate.”[ii]
Although assessing the psychological and emotional impact of the word “strategic” is valuable, here we are more concerned about the use of the word to convey meaning in discussions of military operations, weaponry, international competition, and war. This is no pedantic endeavor; techno-political developments now seem to demand the broader use of the word “strategic” in military affairs. The rise of new domains of warfare (space, cyberspace, artificial intelligence) and new weapons (hypersonic vehicles, autonomous systems and weapons, nanotechnology) all promise to produce “strategic” effects. In the future, more weapons and operations will be considered as game-changing, creating an even greater need for clarity in determining which issues or capabilities merit the label “strategic.”[iii] This article is written from an American perspective; yet the issue applies to all countries. Defining the word “strategic” is a universal task that strategists must address when developing their approach to national security.
No comments:
Post a Comment