Military Review English Edition July-August 2014 | Page 56

U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Whitney C. Houston

the strategic aims were similar across these states.
Another problem was that researchers would need at
least 10 years to develop a qualitative analysis of the
surge in Iraq—to identify the critical variables and
understand the cause-and-effect relationships and interactions. However, action in Afghanistan in 2008 had
to be taken quickly.
In 2008, the surge in Iraq had not been analyzed
sufficiently to establish generalizations—quantitative or
qualitative—about why it worked or why a similar action
might work elsewhere. What about that surge might have
caused a drop in violence? Was it the number of troops,
the population density of the key neighborhoods, or any
of the hundreds of techniques individual commands
used? Military operational researchers have the statistical
background to run complex regression analyses to attack
such questions. They mostly lack the grounding in theory
needed to put those analyses into a historically validated framework that could provide contextual input to a
commander’s decision-making process. In other words,
military operational research specialists will struggle
to see subsurface historical and social differences when
comparing societies with which they are unfamiliar.

Frustration with a qualitative approach is understandable because of the time it can take. A desire for
predictability is understandable as well. However, the
idea that quantitative analysis, even when it does take
less time, will predict the outcomes of military actions
is an illusion—especially if outcomes are to be considered beyond a given mission or operation. Moreover, a
quantitative analysis is faster only when it is limited to
analyzing the accomplishment of a given mission at a
given time—which is not the same as strategic thinking.
One common English definition of strategy is “a
careful plan or method for achieving a particular goal
usually over a long period of time.”12 Any definition
of strategy is based on aligning present decisions with
an idea about a desired future. Strategic thinking is
about “thinking in time,” and thinking in time is about
thinking in terms of the interrelated nature of variables
across time—about context.

What is the Real Question?

Decision makers who think strategically will try to
understand qualitative changes in complex political,
economic, psychological, and military contexts. A
qualitative approach to strategic
thought is concerned with describing the values and interests
of legitimate social groups and
ensuring those values and interests
are represented in public decision-making processes. According
to Bent Flyvbjerg, this helps
ensure “due diligence” in the public
r V