Strategy

Strategy

Strategy is found at many levels, from worldwide movements, global influence networks, factions, political parties, ethnic groups, and families. Individuals have strategies based on dreams, fears, anger, and love. A spy considers all strategies, mostly individual strategies. These are the strategies of enemies and allies. Why are people doing what they’re doing?

[Braddock, 2017]

Game Theory

Why do some strategies succeed or fail? Failure can come from logistical or tactical problems, but most strategies fail before a conflict starts, before an alliance is formed, because they were made in the wrong way.

The First Rule of Strategy, according to game theorists Dixit and Nalebuff, is to look forward and reason backward. This means imagine an outcome, reason how to get there, and take action. Imagination and action are usually the easiest of the three steps. Most people don’t reason backwards because it’s complex, unwieldy, takes effort and time.

[Braddock, 2017]

Attack

Attacks happen when a group has the capability and will to act. Understanding the will to act is simpler when we understand the game someone is playing, a win-win or a win-lose game, a Zero-Sum or Positive-Sum game. There is a rare lose-lose game, a Negative-Sum game, like in a war of attrition. Conflicts are fought over people and/or places and/or things. a Positive-Sum game needs all three.

[Braddock, 2017]

World War I

The history of World War I demonstrates how strategy works. Bismark worked in the 1870s-1890s to get three out of five European powers together: Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia against France and Great Britain. Wilhelm I died, Wilhelm II didn’t like alliances and fired Bismark. When the war started, the Central Powers had lost Russia. To win a Zero-Sum game, you first need a strong Positive-Sum game with an alliance.

[Braddock, 2017]

Stalin’s Network

In the 1930s, Stalin had one of the most powerful spy networks in human history, with the power to report intricate detail before negotiations. In the US, this was because most of the powerful elite in the United States were sympathetic to Communism.

The alliance with Stalin fell apart because of Stalin’s Great Purge and The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939.

Whittaker Chambers, an editor for Time, had been allied with Stalin, but changed his alliance and produced documents to the US Congress. In the 1990s, Soviet archives proved Chambers was accurate on the level of penetration the Stalin network had.

[Braddock, 2017]

Endgame

An Endgame requires people, a place, and things to sustain it. A Climax is when two sides conflict in a Zero-Sum game.

A Communist State called for an American Proletariat unifying all of North America and its resources.

The Bin Laden Endgame was formed during the Soviet-Afghan War when he evaluated a database of people who fought in that war. The Base, or Al-Qaeda in Arabic, was offered to the Saudis, but they refused it, accepting US protection instead. So, Bin Laden developed an Endgame of a Caliphate where he was Caliph, requiring the Ummah (Muslim believers), the Holy Places, and things to sustain it. A Caliph is a successor to Mohammed, which meant he needed to engage in ways that would unite the Ummah.

[Braddock, 2017]

Weak Strategy

A weak strategy goes after one objective, which creates desperation and risk. Rather, develop a strategy that can achieve many things to be successful, creating many possibilities.

[Braddock, 2017]

Boss Games

Boss games are strategies that determine the boss.

In the United States, we have elections and 100 days to focus the administration on a signature issue.

In the Mideast, there was the Arab Spring to change bosses with a war or conflict. In Libya, the alliance fractured and the conflict kept going. In Egypt, the alliance held and Mubarrak was overthrown.

On a global scale, the US President is often less-checked by foreign policy, so Pax Americana, the alliance of pro-American forces, is easier to lead than domestic policy.

In the 10 years since 9/11, Bin Laden didn’t strike because he needed to do something bigger than other leaders were able to do. He didn’t lose his will to strike, but his ability. He tried many big things, including a dirty bomb in the US, but failing that, he was eventually found and killed.

[Braddock, 2017]

Trump 2016

Trump won the 2016 election on a platform of prosperity and strength to the Evangelical and working class people, stretching his alliance to include the Alt-Right. He positioned himself as an outsider, a successful businessman, a relatable politician who speaks to the world through Twitter and his unvarnished view of the world. With success in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, he was able to win with the thinnest margins that surprised even him–he didn’t have a victory speech prepared, didn’t have a transition team in place.

[Richards, 11-13-2019]

Clinton 2016

Clinton pushed mostly an establishment position which was generally unexciting to her base but provided her the broadest support in her presidency. People didn’t expect the upset, which showed that she had misjudged her support in a few critical areas. She was unable to combat the decades-long attacks on the Clinton family corruption, so that her emails and ridiculous stories about her body count were a constant jeer to her as a serious candidate.

[Richards, 11-13-2019]

2017 Democratic Response to Trump

The 2017 response to Trump attacked his credibility, fitness to serve, problems with his administration, problems with his foreign policy, problems with his tax returns and corruption. None of this has swayed his base. Today is the first day of public hearings in his impeachment trial, and there are potentially 25% of Americans whose position on his impeachment could swing. Right now, we are at about a 49% pro-impeachment stance, much higher than Nixon’s when things started for him.

[Richards, 11-13-2019]

2019 Republicans

Most of the world is aghast at what the Republican party has become. The corruption, hypocrisy, meanness, and short-sightedness suggests a leaderless organization, but it is actually making progress with its Endgame. The rise of Evangelicals in the Republican party carries with it a need to be heard, fatigue from being marginalized in American society. This is the same concerns of the Alt-Right and White Supremacists. Just having their guy in the White House is a win. Also, the judges, the border, the retreat from foreign engagement all fit with their Endgame. What looks chaotic and corrupt is still an affirmation of this part of the country’s goals. Strategically, loyalty makes sense.

[Richards, 11-13-2019]

References:

Braddoc, J. (2017). A Spy’s Guide to Strategy.