In almost any institutional setting—in government, business or elsewhere—it is considered good for a leader to have something that can explicitly be called a strategy and bad not to have such a thing. Woe to the senior executive who does not have a “strategic plan” in writing. (One of the pieces of ammunition used by the head of the University of Virginia Board of Visitors in attempting to oust the university's president, Teresa Sullivan, was that Sullivan had not produced a “strategic plan.”) It does not seem to matter if such a document—as is true of most such “strategic plans” that I encountered in government—is at best a re-expression of missions that are already well understood by the work force or priorities that already have been repeatedly communicated. The presumed goodness of distinctive or identifiable strategies often leads to accusations of “he doesn't have a strategy” when this really means “I don't like his policy on some things.”
So what exactly constitutes a strategy, and why—with particular reference to international relations and foreign policy—is acting in a way that can be pointed to as “having a strategy” supposedly superior to approaching foreign problems in some other way?
The question is raised by Leslie Gelb's article about President Obama's foreign policy. Gelb makes rather a big thing about the importance of having a strategy. In the first paragraph in which the subject comes up the words “strategy,” “strategies” or “strategic” are used eight times, and he hammers away at the theme later as well. Anyone of Leslie Gelb's acumen and experience can be expected to offer a wealth of insightful and valuable policy recommendations, and Gelb certainly does so in the article. But for all his emphasis on having a strategy, he never really defines what that means.
He does give us some clues. He criticizes Obama's approach toward Afghanistan as being “little more than a disjointed list of tactics.” It is unclear just what would make a set of tactics jointed rather than disjointed, but in any event Gelb's conception of strategy seems to place more emphasis on ultimate goals rather than immediate tactics.
He also tells us which of several recent presidents had a foreign-policy strategy in his view and which ones didn't. Harry Truman, Richard Nixon and George H. W. Bush had strategies, he says, and Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama did not. But in looking at what some of those presidents did and even at what Gelb specifically mentions they did, it is hard to distinguish something that stands out as a strategy from what is simply skillful responses to the particular opportunities and problems that happened to confront particular presidents at the times they were in office. Gelb defines the elder Bush's strategy as “end the Cold War without a hot war by helping Soviet leaders dismantle their empire.” Bush was indeed very successful in conducting his own country's part of the tumultuous events that happened on his watch, but the events didn't happen because of some strategy that Bush formulated, brought with him into office and applied. Robert Gates, in his account of this period (during most of which he was deputy national-security adviser), writes that the smartest thing Bush did as the Soviet empire was crumbling was simply to “play it cool.”
Having or not having a strategy hardly defines what made the elder Bush's foreign policy successful and the younger Bush's foreign policy a disaster. Indeed, the son may have had more of a strategy as Gelb seems to conceive of the term than the father did. The father acknowledged he had a problem with the “vision thing”; the son, who envisioned ending evil in the world, did not. Gelb says George W. Bush “seemed to believe that military assertiveness constituted a strategy.” Well, the younger Bush did believe that was at least a major part of his strategy, and it was a lousy strategy, but that is not the same as not having a strategy.