How a Revolutionary War Lesson Can Help the Executive Branch
Bypass Congressional Obstacles
It’s hard to argue against George Washington as the person most responsible for America winning the Revolutionary War. But behind the scenes an advisor to Washington is perhaps the greatest unsung hero of the war. That advisor persuaded him to abandon a head-on military strategy and take a different path that was more likely to succeed against the British.
As a young man Washington fought for the British in the French and Indian War and he learned from them traditional methods of direct attack against the enemy. Since the British were perhaps the strongest military force in the world, direct frontal attack against a weaker enemy was often a sound strategy.
But after Washington reversed his role and became commander of a fledgling American force that was fighting against a vastly superior British army, he quickly learned – most notably in the New York campaign – that such a frontal attack strategy was bound to fail.
Fortunately for Washington, Nathanael Greene helped him see the wisdom of a guerrilla warfare strategy. Greene entered the Revolutionary War as a private and supply officer but rose to the rank of Major General and became one of Washington’s most trusted advisors. Good thing; for it was this guerrilla strategy – involving small surprise attacks then quick withdrawals, leveraging our native knowledge of the terrain, and disengaging the enemy in order to draw out the war until the British became frustrated and tired of it – that ultimately led to our victory.
The lesson? When fighting a battle, direct attack isn’t always the best strategy.
Different Strategies for Achieving a Goal
Source: Philip Kotler, Kevin Lane Keller: “Marketing Management” 15th Ed.., Chapter 12: “Addressing Competition and Driving Growth”
As shown above, in addition to frontal attack and guerrilla warfare there are other strategies for winning a battle. Each has its advantages, depending on the circumstances. A frontal attack can be successful when the attacker has equal or greater resources than the opponent. A flank attack can create or take advantage of weaknesses in an otherwise stronger opponent. An encirclement strategy involves attacking and ultimately overwhelming an opponent on multiple fronts. And a bypass strategy (my personal favorite) leapfrogs the opponent by redefining the rules of the game.
How can this be applied to our existing political environment and governing process? Very simply. By establishing a Strategic Planning cabinet position the President can redefine the rules of the game (a bypass strategy). That is, he or she can bypass the current Congressional-led budgeting process with a true top-down planning process – a process that establishes national priorities, sets goals and timetables, and defines programs to support the achievement of those goals.
America currently lacks a cohesive national strategy and strategic planning process. That’s something that jeopardizes our future. To fix this, why work within a badly flawed framework, fighting to make incremental changes against an entrenched Congressional army who resists change? Instead, we can bypass the broken process altogether and create a new one, headed by a Strategic Planning cabinet member. Doing so – superseding the existing budgeting process and replacing it with a true Executive Branch-led strategic planning process – would place the army who resists change at a disadvantage, forcing them to operate in a very different environment from the one they currently control and are comfortable with. It would do one other thing: it would help ensure America’s continued global leadership, by institutionalizing a process to proactively prioritize, plan for, and respond to our national strategic priorities.
Comentários