News

2018-03-15

Blending Theory with Practice

By: Dr. Thomas A. Drohan

Dean of the National Defense College

National security strategists study both theory and practice because winning complex wars requires both. Thinking critically about assumptions, logic and evidence helps us anticipate threats to national security. Particularly so for adaptive threats that target vulnerabilities of thought such as entrenched assumptions, flawed logic or even status quo job descriptions. Asymmetric threats include extremists who use social media to recruit and radicalize our youth, and internet trolls who manufacture opinion leaders and narratives that shape perceptions. These threats are real, but they began as innovative concepts with disruptive implications. Such as distributed operations coordinated via virtual networks that exploit vulnerabilities. Neutralizing creative threats requires imagination: how can we transform institutions to out-think proactive adversaries? How can we secure new technologies that depend upon openly shared data? Winning today’s multi-domain wars is an ongoing struggle for advantages in an information-rich competition of ideas and practices.

To prepare leaders for this demanding environment, the National Defense College teaches more than military matters. We also cultivate thinking about futures that have not yet been imagined. For instance, much of the literature about defense strategy concerns itself with abstract questions about the nature and dynamics of the global system. Theoretical questions typically ask why states seek to balance against a rising power or why they prefer to align with one. Theories also examine why distributions of power such as unipolar, bipolar and multipolar systems emerge, and hypothesize about the consequences of change.

As practitioners, we often dismiss questions of why, consumed as we are by daily routines of how to pursue security. How should national security be defined in terms of executable goals? What are the best ways to use national resources, against what threats and for which opportunities? What budget priorities and risks are appropriate for market conditions and political circumstances? These are the pragmatic problems that confront leaders and challenge strategists. Yet, our actions are often shaped by assumptions about why things are so.

Strategists tend to use frameworks grounded in two basic approaches to international security: liberalism and realism. These theories differ with respect to assumptions about the nature of mankind as inherently good or bad. Attributing intent to behavior involves uncertainty and risk, but cannot be avoided. Making decisions based on different theories sharpens our ability to generate and evaluate competing strategies. Similarly, leaders can inspire people to act based on common values. How?

Consider how a leader can convert what many see as a threat into an opportunity. Surrounded by powerful states and facing uncertain internal commitments, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al Nahyan understood the need for change, with unity. In theory, everyone understood that change was needed for modernization. In practice, however, domestic divisions frustrated resourcing actions that would lead change. External powers reinforced these disagreements. The inspirational ideal of an independent sovereign state unified fractious emirates. Sheikh Zayed inspired change with a vision that was theoretical at the time.

A leader can hypothesize “unrealistic” ways out of a problematic situation. Surrounded by mobile weapons, nuclear proliferation, civil wars, and environmental decay, UAE leaders envision ways forward. To wit, Vision 2021 boldly posits six objectives: Cohesive Society and Preserved Identity; Competitive Knowledge Economy; World-class Healthcare; Sustainable Environment and Infrastructure; First-Rate Education System; and a Safe Public and Fair Judiciary. Achieving these ends requires blending theory with practice. That takes strategy, the subject of my next article.

Comments () Views (4449 ) Print

Send To Friend