Strategic Documents
Deciphering the Doctrine
We do a lot of personal research and run across many interesting articles. We set up this section to share what we’re currently reading with our readers. We agree with some of what we read, and we disagree with other stuff we read…, and then there are some that we disagree with vehemently.
But whether we agree with something that we’re reading or not does not affect whether we recommend it to read or not. In fact, well-written pieces that we disagree with will get a lot of attention from us. Disagreement is not disrespect. Disagreement forces us to review and sharpen our arguments or revise our points of view. After all, the single greatest attribute that a strategist can have is the ability to have their mind changed by facts and sound argument.
I’m going to kick this off with something that I am reading… but it is so cliché (especially in Washington D.C.) that I am almost ashamed to include it.
I am currently re-reading the Constitution of the United States.
Stop!! Before you click off of this post, let me explain myself.
Yes, I know everyone in D.C. carries a pocket copy of the Constitution. I know they wave it around while wagging their finger, getting red in the face, and making declarative statements. (I hope no one caught me on film that day… :-)
But I’m stuck. As I research for a piece on National Strategy, I find myself repeatedly asking, “What would the founders think?” In fact, I’ve become a bit obsessed with understanding how the Founders thought about strategy and security.
So, as I began to review historical documents. I poured over The Federalist Papers anew, and of course, I cheated (I’m not in school, so don’t judge). I used Mary Webster’s “The Federalist Papers in Modern Language” as an accompanying tool for whenever I got caught up in any thee, thou, or heretofore kerfuffle. (I highly recommend it)
I also re-read John Adams’ “A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States of America.” Which I was reminded of when I saw it as a reference in Rob Natelson’s very, very good essay on influences for the Constitution, The ideas that formed the Constitution, Part 14: Machiavelli - Independence Institute (i2i.org) (the underlined part there is a link to that excellent piece)
As for strategic thought… Where did the Founders lay theirs out for us? Where is their strategic vision?
I have to say that I was struck (anew) by how the Founders were (and still are) light years ahead of anyone designing national strategy today. They intended for their work to be “self-correcting;” and that it would stand the test of time. And, of course, I found their strategic vision right where it should be… at the beginning.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Strategic Purpose/defined steady state: Work to form a more perfect Union.
Strategic Lines of Effort:
Establish Justice
Ensure domestic Tranquility
Provide for the common defense
Promote the general Welfare
Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
Their desired steady state seems a little ambiguous, but we can tease it out with a little common sense. The Founders argued over every jot and tittle in the Constitution. No word is accidental. If you need proof of that, look no further than “more” perfect Union.
The Founders knew that the Union would/will never be perfect. When they added the word more to the sentence, they changed it from a task to a strategic goal. The Founders don’t ask us to “form a perfect Union.” That wording would indicate that it is a task that can be completed. Instead, the Constitution forms a government that is directed to work in perpetuity (as a steady state) toward the unreachable goal of a perfect union.
How they expected us to do it (and what they expected from the government) is, that we work the five strategic lines of effort that they identified, every day, in perpetuity, always continuing to “perfect” the Union.
For those of us working in government, if we’re not working on one of the five stated lines of effort, we must reprioritize our to-do list.
Now that I’ve re-read it, I marvel at how purposeful they were. The strategic lines of effort are even prioritized. Neither of those lower on the list can come before those that are higher.
So, if you’re looking for an explanation of why my rights aren’t more important than yours, you need to look no further than the fact that the Founders prioritized domestic Tranquility, common defense, and general Welfare above individual liberty.
I think the Constitution (as cliché as it sounds) deserves a re-reading as a strategic document, by everyone working in the three circus rings of our government. The Constitutional Convention was made up of a large number of brilliant individuals. They hadn’t lost their wigs.
(I couldn’t resist the Dad-joke, I am a Dad, after all).
In closing, it may feel like I am lauding the Founders without acknowledging their errors… that is true. Did they make some ugly compromises? Oh my goodness, did they… and I understand the secondary and tertiary effects of what they left undone.
But in the end, the document they finished was what they could agree upon and get signed. They perfected the Union as far as possible with the compromises they could find and then left it for us. They required those who followed them to make the Union even better. So, what are we doing, and what will we leave…?
On the walls of the “old” US Army School of the Americas hung a copy of the US Constitution. All 4 pages of it. Along side was Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms speech. I was a lowly GS employee training developer, but I would guest lecture for the FSP and for the course we called “Democratic Sustainment.” One of my main topics was the US Constitution. I would harp on the structure of the enumerated articles and point out the first was Congress (the people), not the President (the executive) to emphasize the divisions of equal power as the students came from systems that had similar pieces of paper, but in reality they functioned under the cult of personality and the executive held dominate power. I would also review the Amendments one by one to demonstrate how the constitution has changed according to social need, ie., protect people from government 1-10, 11-12 powers of executive, 13-15 citizenry, 16-27 reacting to the modern world. I chucked at your characterization of Washingtonians running around waving their pocket versions of the constitution and spouting their interpretations (I like to say the gun nuts can’t count past 2…and I own many guns). Just like Gaddafi used to have his Green Book, Mao his Little Red Book, and Chavez his Constitution of the Bolivarian State of VZ!! Difference is, we don’t jail citizens that aren’t carrying their copy or can’t recite it by rote memory! The discussions in classes were always lively and sometimes heated as you might expect. I actually did have one VZ Colonel pull out his pocket constitution and wave it around like a mad man one time before they ceased engagement with the US. Fun times back then.