Is there even a remote chance that someone who thought that the war in Iraq was a good idea, had something to do with the attacks on 9/11, or has been well-handled, is going to read a book named \"Fiasco\" which has as its two back cover quotations, glowing endorsements by the New York Times Book Review and Bill Clinton?
Anyway, the reason I bring up this book is simply that it contains a rather good attempt to define the difference between strategy and tactics, a difference entirely lost (it seems) on most of the current crop of US Generals and anyone who plays computer games:
In fact, strategy has a very different and quite simple meaning [from tactics] that flows from just one short set of questions: Who are we, and what are we ultimately trying to do here? How will we do it, and what resources and means will we employ in doing it? The four answers give rise to one's strategy. Ideally, one's tactics will follow from them...
This enterprise has been doomed from its outset by bad strategy. We went into the wrong place at the wrong time for the wrong reason (having already gone to the right place at the right time for the right reason). The question now is, what can we do to make the best of the mess? Who are we? What are we trying to do? How will we do it? What means and resources will we employ?","$updatedAt":"2024-06-05T10:51:16.841+00:00",path:"a-failure-of-strategy",_created:"2024-07-09T20:33:49.169Z",id:"102",_modified:"2024-07-09T20:33:49.169Z","$id":"102",_path:"post/path=a-failure-of-strategy"}}