Introduction
Strategic miscalculations and unnecessary risks have always been part of military conflicts, and even the brightest minds might eventually make an erroneous decision. From these considerations, some experts argue that the concept of strategy is an illusion due to warfare’s complex and chaotic nature. For instance, Richard Betts (2000) postulates ten critiques to strategic planning by addressing the psychological, organizational, and political barriers to effective decision-making. Consequently, the author concludes that implementing sensible strategies is nearly impossible because of human nature and susceptibility to errors (Betts 2000, 48). Nevertheless, the alternative perspective implies that strategy is the essential factor of warfare; however, effective implementation requires an analytical mindset and thoughtful approach to multiple variables of military conflicts (Platias & Koliopoulos 2010, 2). Therefore, it is critical to review the two methodologies and propose a supported solution to the debate. Ultimately, the current paper thoroughly examines Betts’ 10 Critiques and the analytical framework of the Nine Constants and Nine Variables of Strategy and proves that strategy is and can be effective.
Strategy Overview
The analytical framework of the Nine Constants and Nine Variables of Strategy is the foundation of the current work. The methodology implies that specific criteria are vital to the effectiveness of the chosen strategy; for instance, international environment assessment and allocation of resources are constituents of four dimensions of success (Platias & Koliopoulos 2010, 18-21). Consequently, the framework initiated by Art Lykke features objectives, courses of action, resources, and risks as primary concepts of warfare (Yarger 2006, 111). Ultimately, both structures emphasize a thoughtful and meaningful approach to strategic decision-making and, thus, formulate the analytical framework of the Nine Constants and Nine Variables. According to the thesis of the current work, this methodology is essential to warfare and proves the effectiveness of tactics. A large variety of historical scenarios indicate that superior strategy might be the decisive factor in a battle, and inadequate tactics might lead the nation to defeat. Ultimately, strategy plays a vital part in warfare, and the current paper demonstrates it by applying the principles of the analytical framework to real-world scenarios.
Critique Overview
Consequently, it is essential to examine Betts’ 10 Critiques to strategic decision-making. The underlying principle of the methodology is chaotic human nature, which, in turn, leads to randomness in warfare, unsubstantiated objectives, and the prevalence of external factors, such as political and cultural disagreements (Betts 2000, 9-43). While some of the critiques are relevant remarks to the imperfection of strategic decision-making, most of them criticize the mindset behind the military nations. For instance, critiques 3-5 emphasize the psychological barriers, which might obstruct effective warfare, while critiques 9-10 concern relatively external factors, such as politics (Betts 2000, 8). Thus, the said remarks are controllable factors, which address the effectiveness of the military strategy. In other words, Betts highlights these issues to illustrate the randomness factor of strategic decision-making when, in reality, they are barriers, which exemplary leaders can overcome and utilize to gain military advantages. Thus, the current work argues that several of the critiques are counterproductive to Betts’ methodology and, in turn, contribute to the paper’s thesis – strategy is and can be effective.
Case Study Exploration
Having examined the underlying principles of both methodologies, it is critical to review the real-world scenarios and determine the validity of the frameworks. The current paper emphasizes the Russo-Japanese War and American-Japanese conflicts in the Pacific as the primary examples of strategy effectiveness. Consequently, both case studies demonstrate the randomness of warfare, postulated by Richard Betts, to some extent; however, the paper argues that the examined factors can be attributed to specific strategic miscalculations and not underlying randomness of tactics.
Russo-Japanese War
The first case study, which illustrates the effectiveness of strategic decision-making and responds to Betts’ critiques, is the Russo-Japanese War. The Japanese side initiated the conflict on 4 February 1904, and the war lasted until 5 September 1905, resulting in the victory of Japan (Jukes 2002, 15). Ultimately, the nations signed the Treaty of Portsmouth, which allocated South Sakhalin and Liaotung Peninsula to Japan (Jukes 2002, 15). Nevertheless, the conflict was associated with a large variety of strategic achievements and miscalculations, and the current paper thoroughly analyzes the case study to determine the effectiveness of strategic decision-making.
Military Strength and Strategic Planning
First, it is essential to discuss the relative military strength of both nations and determine the role of strategic planning in the outcome of the conflict. At the time of the conflict, despite the significant difference in population numbers between the two nations, the naval power was relatively equal (Jukes 2002, 22). The Japanese government achieved this parity by concentrating the fleet at one point – in the domestic waters – while the Russian navy was heavily spread out in the Baltic Sea and the Pacific (Koda 2005, 22). Furthermore, the focus on several strategic points allowed the Japanese to stretch the Russian fleet between Port Arthur and Vladivostok (Koda 2005, 22). Ultimately, the Japanese correctly evaluated the Russian military strength and chose the appropriate strategy to avoid direct confrontation (Koda 2005, 22). In terms of the analytical framework, Japan assessed the international environment, identified the relation between means and ends, and exemplary allocated the existing resources.
On the other hand, the Russian government made a series of arguably poor decisions, which significantly obstructed the effectiveness of the strategy. First, the generals underestimated the Japanese military power and, thus, neglected the necessity of intelligence analysis and international assessment (Jukes 2002, 21). Consequently, the Trans-Siberian Railway – the primary line of communication from Central Russia to the Far East – was not completed in 1904 and designated the lack of foresight from Russian generals and inadequate resource allocation (Koda 2005, 22). Furthermore, some experts argue that the initial construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway in the late 19th century could be one of the causes for the Russo-Japanese War; therefore, the Russian government needed to prepare for potential conflicts due to expansion to the Far East (Patrikeeff & Shukman 2007, 4). Ultimately, Russia incorrectly assessed the international environment, underestimated the adversary, and had a poor strategy of resource allocation, which designates an inadequate application of the analytical framework.
Consequently, the Japanese government also established the council of political and military leaders – commonly known as Genro – which assisted the nation in the decision-making process during the war. Betts’ critique 7 addresses the goal displacement of organizations and institutions that might significantly change the overall objectives of the nation due to shifted focus (Betts 2000, 32). Nevertheless, the implemented Genro acted as a complementary assistance to the Grand Strategy and a negotiator between the emperor and the people (Koda 2005, 19). Thus, the political power belonged to the prime minister; however, the additional help from the Genro institution played a vital role in the war, which contradicts Betts’ critique 7. In other words, the Japanese government utilized the seeming disadvantage of power distribution to its advantage, thus, demonstrating the effectiveness of thoughtful strategies.
Political Instability in Russia
The political instability in Russia played a vital part in the conflict, and the Japanese side thoughtfully took advantage of it. In 1904, Russia was on the brink of the revolution, and the situation further escalated due to losses in Port Arthur and Tsushima (Jukes 2002, 76). Furthermore, the Japanese government was continually sending undercover units to the major Russian cities to support the revolutionary movement (Koda 2005, 21). Betts’ critiques 9 and 10 concern the political barriers that obstruct effective decision-making and primarily revolve around the plurality of political views (Betts 2000, 40-43). In other words, a large variety of political opinions – be it either democracy or the presence of opposition groups – hinders the military strategy.
Therefore, according to Betts, this development is an argument for the shallowness and ineffectiveness of strategical thinking. Nevertheless, in reality, while it significantly obstructed the Russian plans, the Japanese government deliberately utilized it to gain military advantage and, thus, demonstrated exemplary strategic decision-making (Koda 2005, 21). Ultimately, while Betts’ remarks criticize the political environment for making strategies ineffective, the real-world scenario demonstrates that any inconvenience for one side can be exploited by the other faction, thus, illustrating that strategy is and can be effective.
Motives and Psychological Aspect
As mentioned before, Betts’ 10 critiques put heavy emphasis on the chaotic human nature and psychological condition of military leaders. Critique 3 concerns psychoanalysis and states, “Strategy is an illusion because leaders do not understand what motives drive them, and delude themselves about what they are really trying to do” (Betts 2000, 22). This critique is a notable concern for most military conflicts, as the generals are only people and prone to mistakes and unsubstantiated expectations. For instance, during the siege of Port Arthur, the Russian generals were in disarray and could not agree on the following strategy (Jukes 2002, 40). It is a transparent example of the scarce understanding of objectives and inadequate strategic training. As a result, the Japanese outmaneuvered the Russian navy, commanded by Kuropatkin, and push the adversary to the back of Manchuria (Jukes 2002, 42). Nevertheless, the said critique stems from the inadequate expectations of the Russian military leaders, overextension, and incorrect assessment of the international environment. Thus, similar to the conclusion before, the current paper argues that the fact of warfare complexity does not diminish the significance of strategy but instead emphasizes it.
Furthermore, the Russo-Japanese War demonstrates the relative shallowness of critique 5, “culture versus coercion”. The author explains this remark by stating that collective personality traits of certain cultures might become a significant obstacle to effective warfare (Betts 2000, 28). However, the opposite is also true, and the Japanese government took advantage of its soldiers by enforcing the religious philosophy of honor in death (Patrikeeff & Shukman 2007, 2). In terms of the analytical framework, the Japanese generals successfully implemented the strategic variable of “culture” and increased the effectiveness of the military strategy. Ultimately, cultural differences might be used deliberately for strategic warfare, which contradicts the concept of inherent cultural barriers based on critique 5.
Summary of the Russo-Japanese War
As mentioned before, the current paper does not deny the complex nature of military warfare and multiple variables that affect the eventual outcome. From these considerations, strategic planning, political instability, and psychological aspects, which correspond to critiques 2, 3, 5, 9, and 10, only demonstrate the inadequate leadership of the Russian generals in the conflict. In other words, the said factors were controllable variables that Nikolai II should have taken into account and adjusted the Grand Strategy accordingly. Consequently, contrary to Betts’ beliefs of the randomness of strategy, the current analysis implies the utmost significance of thoughtful decision-making. Thus, the seemingly chaotic nature of strategy should be translated as the complexity of warfare, which, in turn, makes tactics even more critical. Ultimately, military conflicts frequently result unexpectedly; however, in most cases, it is the outcome of incorrect application of the analytical framework and not the inherent randomness of strategic decision-making.
Pacific War
The second case study takes a closer look at the Pacific War – the series of military conflicts in Asia, Oceania, and the Pacific Ocean during World War II. The beginning of the war is generally indicated by the Pearl Harbor attack on 7 December 1941 and ended on 2 September 1945, resulting in the victory of the Allied forces (Horner 2002, 9-11). Similar to the Russo-Japanese War, Japan was at a disadvantage in regard to military strength; however, this time, the difference in numbers was even more transparent, and many experts believe that it was impossible for Japan to win the war (Wood 2007, 2). Nevertheless, despite the military advantages of the Allied forces, Japan demonstrated a series of highly effective operations, which could potentially turn the tide of war. Therefore, the Pacific War shows that strategic decision-making is critical to warfare, even when the power of the factions is highly unbalanced.
Industrial Superiority
One of the reasons for Japan’s ultimate defeat is the overwhelming industrial superiority of America and Britain. From the perspective of John Ellis, the outcome of the war was predetermined from the start, and no strategy could change it (Wood 2007, 2). At the time, the Allied forces had significantly more powerful and technologically developed armies, which left Japan little room for maneuvers and tactics (Horner 2002, 20). For instance, America produced approximately 30 million tons of steel in 1937, while Japan acquired only 6 million (Horner 2002, 21). The differences of such scale included most areas of industrial development, such as personal equipment, tanks, navy, aviation, and weapon research. From these considerations, many experts argue that the Pacific War was a war that Japan could not have possibly won. Ultimately, this perspective aligns with Betts’ view of strategic planning, which states that strategy is of little importance when one side has notably more raw power and dominates in the conflict (Betts 2000, 6). However, unlike the Betts’ expectations in such conflicts, Japan posed a serious threat to the Allied forces.
Limited War
Despite the overwhelming advantages of American industrial strength, Japan was able to achieve great results at the beginning of the campaign. Experts argue that the Japanese military campaign from December 1941 to March 1942 was one of the most successful series of operations in history (Horner 2002, 30). Japan achieved immense results in Malaya, the South China Sea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, and the Philippines, taking control of Southeast Asia (Horner 2002, 30). Therefore, while it was a heavily outnumbered “limited war”, Japan was able to conduct an intelligent strategy of exhaustion and take control of the adjacent territories. Winston Churchill described these operations as “the worst disaster in British military history” due to the strategical miscalculations of the Allied forces and intelligent plans of the Japanese generals (Horner 2002, 30). Nevertheless, Japan’s successful operations hindered the practical approach, making the generals believe the overwhelming superiority of the Japanese armies, which eventually led Japan to defeat.
Attention to Politics
On the other side of the conflict, emphasis on politics was a significant factor that contributed to the success of the American armies. As seen from the example of the Russo-Japanese War, the Japanese generals were able to exploit the political tension to their advantage, thus, correctly applying the strategic variable of politics. In the Pacific War, the Americans have utilized a similar strategy and emphasized the political aspect of the warfare (Brower 2012, 149). After the conflict, the American general Marshall stated, “I doubt if there was any one thing <…> that came to our minds more frequently than political factors” (Brower 2012, 149). Thus, political aspects played a vital part in the strategical decision-making, which slightly contradicts Betts’ critiques 9 and 10. Namely, Betts (2000, 40) mentions that the diversity of political plurality systems, such as democracy, undermines military logic and hinders strategy application. Nevertheless, the American HQ was able to mitigate this factor and emphasized politics as the essential variable of strategy, which eventually helped the Allied forces win the war.
Summary of the Pacific War
Ultimately, the Pacific War was a conflict with a transparent contrast of military power between Japan and the Allied forces. Many experts argue that Japan was destined to fail, and no strategy could potentially shake the balance of power. Nevertheless, the Pacific War is a genuine example of the utmost significance of strategic decision-making, specifically since Japan was able to succeed during the earlier stages of the conflict. The conduction of limited war allowed Japan to take control of Southeast Asia and pose a serious threat to the Allied forces. Thus, despite the eventual loss, Japan demonstrated the effectiveness of the chosen strategies during the beginning of the war.
Conclusion
The current paper has examined the two military conflicts from the perspective of Betts’ 10 Critiques and the analytical framework of the Nine Constants and Nine Variables of Strategy. The investigation of the Russo-Japanese War revealed that intelligent strategy with a focus on political instability and psychological aspects allowed Japan to overwhelm Russia. Based on the analysis, Betts’ critiques 2, 3, 5, 9, and 10 deem shallow and inapplicable to the examined conflict. On the other hand, the Japanese generals demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the analytical framework and utilized it to their advantage. Furthermore, the investigation of the Pacific War revealed that, despite the overwhelming industrial superiority of America, Japan was able to utilize the intelligent tactics to conduct a limited war and take control of Southeast Asia. Thus, even though the Allied forces won the war, the strategy allowed Japan to dominate in the earlier stages of the conflict. Ultimately, the current paper has demonstrated that Betts’ critiques of strategy are inapplicable to certain conflicts and that strategy is and can be effective in warfare.
Bibliography
Betts, Richard. 2000. “Is Strategy an Illusion?” International Security 25, no. 2: 5-50.
Brower, Charles. 2012. Defeating Japan: The Joint Chiefs of Staff and Strategy in the Pacific War, 1943-1945. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US.
Horner, David. 2002. The Second World War (I) The Pacific. Oxford: Osprey Publishing.
Jukes, Geoffrey. 2002. The Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905. Oxford: Osprey Publishing.
Koda, Yoji. 2005. “The Russo-Japanese War: Primary Causes of Japanese Success.” Naval War College Review 58, no. 2:11-44.
Patrikeeff, Felix, and Harry Shukman. 2007. Railways and the Russo-Japanese War: Transporting War. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
Platias, Athanassios and Constantinous Koliopoulos. 2010. “Chapter 1: Grand Strategy: A Framework for Analysis.” In Thucydides on Strategy, 1-21. London: Hurst.
Wood, James. 2007. Japanese Military Strategy in the Pacific War: Was Defeat Inevitable? Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Yarger, Harry. 2006. “Toward a Theory of Strategy.” In Guide to National Security Policy and Strategy, 107-113. Carlisle: U.S. Army War College.