p.13 Discussions of conflict today begin with complexity theory,
systems analysis, and Design [JLJ - "Design" is the name given to the military's latest attempt to understand and
manage the complex forces that confront a battlefield commander as he maneuvers in the battlefield environment in a proactive
rather than reactive manner].
p.16 Strategy addresses the ends, ways, and means of war and embraces how
a nation prepares for and conducts it... Strategy sets ends, ways, and means so that political and military leaders can determine
progress, or lack of progress, in implementing a strategy.
p.16 One should not confuse articulating a strategy with predicting the course of action and outcome of
the conflict.
p.17 Every strategy's chance of success depends upon getting the correct definition of the problem
in order to apply elements of national power to its solution. Strategy is dialectical in the sense
that success depends upon the enemy's responses in the struggle for the loyalty of the population.
p.17 The only apparent way left to oppose America and its allies was to adapt Liddell-Hart's strategy
of "the indirect approach" to the 21st century.
p.20 warfare is not predictable. Embarking on a conflict involves risk. The best the national
leadership can do is to assess that risk and develop strategy that will minimize it.
p.21 Without theory, there can be no sound political course of action or strategy.
p.21 Theory and strategy should be about the ends, ways, and means to counter that enemy and adapt to his
changes.
p.22 The U.S. definition of strategy is "A prudent idea
or set of ideas for employing the instruments of national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater,
national, and/or multinational objectives." Joint Publication 1-02. This definition may be part of the problem. Strategy
is so much more than a prudent idea.
