Part 4

Grand Strategy

by Hugh M. Lewis

Grand strategy has philosophical precepts. General philosophy has a very intimate interrelationship with grand strategy and the two terms may be generally confused and frequently interchanged. In order to understand the nature of grand strategy it is necessary to clarify the distinctions between the two terms. The connotations of philosophy are more generally applicable than those of grand strategy. Philosophy implies an abstract body of concepts, theories and beliefs, which together forms a comprehensive unity out of the endless variety of human thought. While philosophy may be studied in several different manners, it may be generally divided into two schools, the natural discipline and the social discipline. The former deals primarily with the scientific perspective in attempting to describe reality, the processes and laws of nature of which man is but a passive observer and in which the human elements of unpredictability is excluded from consideration. It is scientific philosophy. The latter discipline centers around the human perspective which necessarily includes unpredictability in its many aspects. It is humanistic philosophy.

Grand strategy implies an all inclusiveness, a plan incorporating active omniscience of intelligence with active omnipresence of control. Unless one is willing to hypothesize the ultimate omniscience and omnipresence of metaphysical truth and the unknowable dictates of fate which are scientifically untenable, an objective analysis of grand strategy is of necessity more concerned with the social school of philosophy. Grand strategy centers around the element of controlling human unpredictability. Philosophy alone is passive. Grand strategy is philosophy applied to reality with purpose, it implies theory in action with a direction of controlling willpower at its human source.

The study of grand strategy is a social discipline, dealing with built in unpredictability. Coexistence of incompatible theories is often possible in other social disciplines because there does not occur an enforced collision in their operational realizations. Grand strategy by definition is intercultural. General has much broader implications in strategy than in other disciplines. Strategic theories must be universally applicable. Grand strategy deals essentially with the human will. In achieving omnipresence and omniscience of control it must deal with imperfections which manifest themselves in the limitations of the existing grand strategies. Semantic clarification is essential to the study of grand strategy. The very heart of strategic limitation is the problem of semantic difficulties in the study of grand strategy. Semantic clarification thus strikes at the heart of all confusion within the collective strategic mind. A common comprehensive semantic foundation is fundamental to the conceptual unity needed for the clarity of this collective strategic mind. Just as thought must precede execution a successful grand strategy must begin with comprehensive unity of thought.

The term strategy has a military connotation. Grand strategy must transcend this conceptual confinement by being more generally applicable. Grand strategy not only deals with the military perspective but consists of three general groups of perspectives with which human civilization has been involved. Each of these fundamental categories of grand strategy are predicated on the basis of a different determinant of control. Control is the key function of all strategic consideration, implying a control over human will and unpredictability, implying ultimately determination of omniscience and omnipresence. Force strategy is predicated on the assumption that the destruction of destructive force and its value is the primary determinant of this control. Force strategy is the primary concern of the military sphere of the strategic mind. Power strategy is predicated on the presumption that the enforcement of power through the manipulation of fore and value combined in balance is the principle determinant of control. This type involves primarily the political sphere of strategic analysis. Value strategies are predicated on the presumption that manipulation of value is the principle determinant of control. Force strategies have been the most popular in military literature being best recognized by the term strategy. While the collective strategic mind has been focused on the force strategies, all three types of strategies are interdependent and interrelated on context to the overall strategic perspective. None have occurred successfully independently and separately. Focus needs to be adjusted and balanced between all three types before conceptual unity insuring a proper strategic perspective can occur.

All three types of strategies have evolved simultaneously into groups of distinct elementary grand strategy, that have been advocated theoretically and applied operationally during the course of strategic evolution. These elementary strategies are fundamentally irreducible on the presumptions on which they are predicated, each professing different doctrines and patterns of achieving the predicated type control and professing eventual domination of world society. These elementary strategies are often mistakenly called theories. Theories are coherent philosophical conclusions based on reality and are theories empirically tenable. While these elementary strategies are based to some extent on theory, their scientific nature diminishes the more theory is substituted to the qualitative judgments of its advocates. Elementary strategies are philosophy in so much as they successfully translate reality, yet they remain essentially strategy in that they are verified only in so far as they are operationally functional toward achieving their specified aim in the specified manner. Each elementary strategy is limited by the premise predications of the origin of control and the means of manipulation whether through value, power, or force. Each one is distinct and is strategically successful only in so far ad the underlying premises are correct and unlimited. None alone describe a comprehensively successful grand strategy of unlimited premises and application.

While these elementary strategies coexist and intermesh in application some strategies have achieved greater emphasis of focus of attention from the collective strategic mind during the course of their evolution. While the evolution of the three types of strategies have been simultaneous and coincidental the evolution of strategic emphasis of each type has been along different lines. In retrospect it should be possible to extrapolate the continued evolution of strategic emphasis into the future. The predominant focus of strategic attention has been primarily on the force strategies, secondly on the power strategies, and lastly on the value strategies. Yet with the force strategies apparently reaching a dead end with the advent of nuclear warfare, strategic emphasis is beginning to shift, requiring a subsequent shift of focus of attention by the collective strategic mind.

Military Dimensions