Military Review English Edition July-August 2014 | Page 18

U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Mikki L. Sprenkle

War does not have a discipline to study it—it
lies on the seams of the way academia is organized … [So to study war] I think the best
skill set is diverse and multi-disciplinary. War
is a complicated social phenomenon, and to
understand it, it helps to be able to approach
it from different directions.19
Oxford historian Hew Strachan concurs, calling
strategic studies, “a hybrid—a disciplinary mix of
history, politics, law, some economics, and even a little

disciplines or fields that contribute to the course syllabus. This approach is beneficial in that it avoids myopic,
single-discipline approaches to studying conflict. It
imparts the sense of intellectual humility that retired
Marine Gen. James Mattis counsels: “We need an educated, adaptable officer corps—not one married to any
single preclusive view of war.”22 Strategic studies education for junior officers should embrace this philosophy.

Strategic Frameworks

Using many disciplines necessitates strategic frameworks to
funnel diverse ideas for analysis.
Some frameworks are general
and can span the levels of war.
Former British Army officer Emile
Simpson describes a helpful tactical and operational framework he
calls Can I? Should I? Must I?:
“‘Can I?’ is a legal question
about rules of engagement;
‘should I?’ is about the
effect—does the potential
action support the purpose of
the wider operation; ‘must I?’
is a practical moral question
which seeks especially to keep
potential civilian casualties to
a minimum.”23
Another framework is the
well-known balancing of military
(From Left to Right) Retired Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, president of The Association of The
objectives (ends), military conUnited States Army, introduces the panel for the Strategic Landpower Forum at the Walter
cepts (ways), military resources
E. Washington Convention Center, Washington, D.C., 23 October 2013. Gen. Robert W.
(means), and risk, as described by
Cone, Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, Gen. John M. Paxton, Jr, and Adm. William Harry McRaven (not shown) sit on the panel to provide remarks and answer questions.
Arthur Lykke.24 Lykke’s comprehensive approach engages with
mathematics.”20 Individuals serving in strategic roles
many academic disciplines.
tend to come from varied backgrounds; this variation
More recently, Irving Lachow provides yet
strengthens the collective effort. In a recent survey of
another framework: “Is it legal? Is it moral? Can
234 “current and former senior government officials”
it be effective? Is it wise?”25 This broader take on
that regularly confront strategic challenges, Paul C.
Simpson’s framework is useful for its flexibility. It
Avey and Michael C. Desch found significant diversity
can help leaders assess nearly any strategic or miliin academic background: 13 separate undergraduate
tary action, from intervention to cruise missile strike
majors, as diverse as biology and foreign language, with
to humanitarian relief. The wisdom question is open
another 12 percent in the “other” category.21
to interpretation, but one useful guideline might be
Accordingly, in the elective military strategy
achievement of sustainable ends consistent with national
course at West Point, there are 14 separate academic
interest—at an acceptable cost.26
16

July-August 2014  MILITARY REVIEW