Just now in the presidential debates, McCain said that Obama doesn't know strategy. I blogged on this a few weeks ago. McCain is wrong.
In Senator Obama's speech on foreign policy today in Washington D.C. called "A New Strategy for a New World", he demonstrated that he understands the role of strategy vs. tactics. But does McCain? Under fire from McCain for talking about Iraq before he visits there next week, Obama also demonstrated the he understands the role of a leader -- to lay out a strategy in broad principles and let the generals fill in the tactics to achieve that strategy.
The great Chinese General Sun Tzu knew the difference in 500 B.C. when he declared, "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.
In addition, back when the discussion of strategy v. tactics in Iraq was highlighted in the media, I noted the following:
McCain, on the other hand, responded mainly in tactical terms -- "I know how to win a war" he said. Yes, the "how to" is important. But the "what to do" is even more important. Americans may not be too familiar with the differences between strategy and tactics, subjected as we have been for the past eight years to the "strategery" of George Bush's administration, which has been a series of actions taken without a greater strategy in mind. The Surge itself was a tactic, not a strategy, and as a tactic it appears to have reduced violence. What Obama did today was to put the Surge into the wider context of a foreign policy strategy American desperately needs to implement.
Who do you trust to know more about real strategy? McCain and (Palin)?? Or Obama, who was right on the war in the first place.
And by the way -- why isn't McCain wearing a FLAG PIN tonight? Come on, folks. This is a travesty! Obama has a flag pin. Where is McCain's?
In terms of strategy and tactics, it depends alot on the type of hierarchy and the culture.
In a small team operation, the leader provides the vision , the strategy and some tactics.
The next level below, the expediters does the dirty work.
Depending on the management culture, the expediters might recommend a better set of tactics for implementation purposes..
In a large team operation with massive levels of hierarchy, the grand leader provides the vision (the grand goal) and the basic specifications for the strategy.
The next level below, the implementers manage the macro strategy to complete the grand goal.
This macro strategy is a framework of many objectives and micro schemes.
The leader of the implementers might assigned each team implementer an assignment of completing a specific objectives
Below the implementers are the expediters does the dirty work. Depending on the project culture, the implementers rarely do the wet work.
Does it make sense!?
http://gdaeman.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-incorrectly-equates-military.html
~
In terms of strategy and tactics, strategy requires thought and tactics is about observation. Which candidate do you think, has an original thought in their brain.
In my view, either candidate does not possesses a Tangible Vision that smart people would follow.
Professionally, I am a strategist who has used principles from Sun Zi AoW and other Chinese Chinese Strategic Classics in various ventures. Ms. Bergthold! If you want a lesson on Sunzi's Art of War, I would be more than happy to send you an article on how to use the Sunzi AoW principles as a process.
I wanted to respond to Cardinal999 by describing my sources for haivng Sun Tzu the source of the quotes I used...
So here are the sources --
http://www.suntzu1.com/
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu
and http://www.rootbusinesstools.com/home/2008/6/23/strategy-tactics-from-sun-tzu.html
I would be happy if you would share other sources if you feel these are not accurate.
Somehow it got deleted.
This supports my point that Obama understands that strategy is the purview of the leader; tactics are what the generals do to carry out the leader's principles and direction. The early polls suggest Obama won overall, and especially carried the part of the debate on the economy -- which happens to be what voters care most about right now.
What is interesting is that the pundits uniformly thought McCain won; the people, if the polling is accurate, appear to feel otherwise. The debate score should then be: People: 1; Pundits: 0
I suppose it was good strategy for Sen Obama to wear a flag pin, and a tactical error for Sen McCain not to.
Gosh, I love this country where we can make fun and show the silliness of this process while, at the same time, taking it all very seriously.
What I noticed through last nights debate is not only did Mac NOT say "middle class" (as did Obama) but Mac obviously has a problem with Obama and never looked at him. Either he is very arrogant, or feels terribly guilty and just could not look Obama in the eye.
Just sayin'...
Where was the flag pin???
Come on, the conservatives established this as the must have standard.....a politician must have a flag pin or they don't love our country. Forget service to the country, forget time as a POW, forget being a Senator, forget being married to MS BUD --- no pin, no love, no vote.
Who needs substance when a winner can be declared by a simple pin?
Winner - Obama.
I did noticed he did not have a flag pin last night.