The only thing I would add for the benefit of your readers is that if they want Boyd’s words, along with the slides, for “Strategic Game,” the transcript for the entire presentation with slides embedded is now available in “Snowmobiles and Grand Ideals” as chapter 3:
While it was useful at the time for Air University to collect Boyd’s slides in a sanitized packet, their publication is frankly obsolete since it only has half the material Boyd presented.
Starting with the events made famous by the Black Hawk Down book and film, targeting individuals has come at the expense of sound military principles. Targeting an enemy's logistical systems has been overlooked in favour of strategic and operational absence.
Ironically, the Iranians and the Trump administration are both caught in the grip of madness. The Iranians prefer to send missiles against civilian targets in the Gulf States, instead of attacking shipping in the Gulf. There was also their failed attempt at commerce raiding in the Indian Ocean.
How Trump and his cabinet failed to find a clear reason for the war against Iran is strategic lunacy, and a conflict loser.
Great essay. Spot on: trying to build policy by starting with tactics is, as you pointed out, a non starter. Like a robin trying to build a nest by starting with aggregating twigs in mid air; the presence of a tree matters and cannot be skipped over, nor can the steps be reversed. Further...I am glad to see someone noting that the Day of FIres Only can accomplish any desired endstate likely remains not true. Worse, although I hold out cold hope, I am starting to worry that we are simply executing in a more competent version of 'fire that mortar' (Stripes movie reference).
Excellent piece, although I would argue that Tom Nichols is correct and the victory the Trump admin is attempting to replicate is that from January in Venezuela.
The main assumption of this military operation is that: Faced with the attrition and neutralization of the strategic political C2 through strategic bombing and operational fires, the Iranian government would fall into strategic paralysis and rapidly collapse. Once again, the recipe of "Warden's rings," adapted from the ideas of Douhet and Trenchard and used in WWII, Vietnam, and the 1991 Persian Gulf War, was employed without success and with significant criticism from politicians and citizens alarmed by the high material cost and, above all, by the disproportionate use of force.
Although I agree with much of what you wrote, I believe there’s a fatal flaw.
First, let’s realize Donald Trump spent the first four years in office without starting a single war, or firing a shot.
Second, rightly wrongly, he is intensely proud of ending wars in his presidency. He doesn’t believe in them. At minimum, they are bad for business - and they kill people.
Agree or disagree, this is his stated public mantra, dating back 15 or 20 years, and he has conducted five years of his presidency (until Venezuela) based on those tenets.
Rather than high-level theorizing of strategy versus tactics, it may be Donald Trump changed his standards of behavior for the last 20 years because he saw something that scared him, and he knew he had to act to protect the United States.
Strategy is great until somebody threatens you with a nuclear bomb. As Mike Tyson memorably said, “everybody has a strategy until they get punched in the face.“
Apparently — unlike everybody else on here — I DO NOT KNOW one way or the other if the President saw an existential threat. But he did not change this hard, this quickly, without reason.
Those claiming he was “led into a war” with Iran, or “forced into a war” by Netanyahu ignore 40 years of provocation — during which thousands of Americans have been killed and tens of thousands wounded — by the Mullahs of Tehran.
Those who claim we had no strategy may be ignorant of the pentagon’s efforts in that area. There are numerous offices dedicated to contingency planning across every geography in the world. Critics may disagree with that strategy, but I would not suggest we executed without one. like a punch in the face, war has a way of destroying everybody’s perfect strategy.
President Trump seems to have learned the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, at least as applied to Venezuela. He is not nation building, he simply said, “figure it out on your own within these parameters.“ No drug dealing, etc.
Recognizing Persia is a 4000 year-old civilization (run by lunatics for only the last 50 years), I suspect he may follow that same path again.
He has already said as much by refusing to install the Shah.
The President appears to want an Iran run by Iranians of their choosing; that does not threaten its neighbors (that is why we have bases in the region, not to protect the Gulf states from Israel, but to protect the Gulf states from Iran); that does not threaten US interests in the region (the free flow of oil at market prices); that does not build nuclear bombs (because they really will kill everybody).
That last point is why a grand, overarching strategy may not even be possible? When dealing with people whose nihilist end state is, “kill everybody that disagrees with us — including their fellow Muslims — so we go to paradise” it’s a little difficult to build the perfect strategy around that one. Sometimes you launch when you have to.
If you think those same nihilists are getting a bomb? You better go as fast as you possibly can to stop it, using whatever strategy you have on hand at the time.
Recognize Iran has launched far more missiles at its Islamic neighbors than it has at Israel. That demonstrates their mindset as nothing else can. It is the nihilism I suggest above.
Thank God, the United States military and Donald Trump none of those missiles launched were nuclear tipped.
For many of us that IS the seminal point, and the rest is details.
Your first two points are false. He did employ war in his first term (Somalia, west Africa, and he killed Soleimani remember?) He has also ended no wars. Ever.
Trump actually pulled the troops out of Somalia in one of his last actions in office during his first term. Other than some counterterror work in Niger he was notably skeptical of the AFRICOM in its totality.
The killing of General Soleimani was a DOD operation, and qualifies as “a shot fired”. I stand corrected. Since I am already standing, I am applauding too.
Similarly, he deployed missiles on December 25 of 2025 to kill ISIS operatives in Nigeria — in conjunction with the Nigerian government — who were resident in that country and slaughtering Christians.
Regardless, none of these largely discretionary, kinetic incidents serve as proof points that President Trump or the United States acts without a strategy in Iran, or anywhere else.
A reasonable person could argue killing terrorist leadership at opportune moments globally serves a larger strategy of enforcing the rule of law, and saving innocent lives.
The fact no American lives were lost in these three actions (Soleimani, Niger or Nigeria) suggests those making these decisions are operating with a consistent strategy and with superb, tactical execution.
The idea of President Trump had no hand in peace deals struck in various locations around the world is belied by contemporaneous news reports on behalf of the participants thanking President Trump for his assistance in striking said peace deals.
Does the US not having a strategy or policy in Iran necessarily invalidate ends-ways-means as a concept? It sounds more like a case of unclearly defined (if at all) ends which then unravels the purpose of how a state employs (ways) the forces at it's disposal (means).
I'm not saying it's a be all and end all, but I do think ends-ways-means is a useful framework, especially for early exposure to strategy (eg start of an MA or junior-mid level staff course).
The problem with ends-ways-means is it imposes a linear framework on an inherently nonlinear phenomenon. It encourages the assumption that just more tactics at greater scale lead to a strategy, but it never works.
The U.S. really started using it in the 1990s, so what really invalidates it is the lack of strategic success we’re seen every time it’s tested in the real world.
A very well considered and argued response. I always found the ways part very fuzzy and hard to pin down... and you are correct in that it encourages linear thinking.
The only thing I would add for the benefit of your readers is that if they want Boyd’s words, along with the slides, for “Strategic Game,” the transcript for the entire presentation with slides embedded is now available in “Snowmobiles and Grand Ideals” as chapter 3:
https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/Snowmobiles%20and%20Grand%20Ideals_web.pdf
While it was useful at the time for Air University to collect Boyd’s slides in a sanitized packet, their publication is frankly obsolete since it only has half the material Boyd presented.
Starting with the events made famous by the Black Hawk Down book and film, targeting individuals has come at the expense of sound military principles. Targeting an enemy's logistical systems has been overlooked in favour of strategic and operational absence.
Ironically, the Iranians and the Trump administration are both caught in the grip of madness. The Iranians prefer to send missiles against civilian targets in the Gulf States, instead of attacking shipping in the Gulf. There was also their failed attempt at commerce raiding in the Indian Ocean.
How Trump and his cabinet failed to find a clear reason for the war against Iran is strategic lunacy, and a conflict loser.
Great essay. Spot on: trying to build policy by starting with tactics is, as you pointed out, a non starter. Like a robin trying to build a nest by starting with aggregating twigs in mid air; the presence of a tree matters and cannot be skipped over, nor can the steps be reversed. Further...I am glad to see someone noting that the Day of FIres Only can accomplish any desired endstate likely remains not true. Worse, although I hold out cold hope, I am starting to worry that we are simply executing in a more competent version of 'fire that mortar' (Stripes movie reference).
Excellent piece, although I would argue that Tom Nichols is correct and the victory the Trump admin is attempting to replicate is that from January in Venezuela.
Is it even tactics? But rather rote running of procedures?
The main assumption of this military operation is that: Faced with the attrition and neutralization of the strategic political C2 through strategic bombing and operational fires, the Iranian government would fall into strategic paralysis and rapidly collapse. Once again, the recipe of "Warden's rings," adapted from the ideas of Douhet and Trenchard and used in WWII, Vietnam, and the 1991 Persian Gulf War, was employed without success and with significant criticism from politicians and citizens alarmed by the high material cost and, above all, by the disproportionate use of force.
Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat
-Sun Tzu
True, but that’s also not a real Sun Tzu quote.
Any idea of its real source? The “Internet” is ascribing it to Sun Tzu.
Although I agree with much of what you wrote, I believe there’s a fatal flaw.
First, let’s realize Donald Trump spent the first four years in office without starting a single war, or firing a shot.
Second, rightly wrongly, he is intensely proud of ending wars in his presidency. He doesn’t believe in them. At minimum, they are bad for business - and they kill people.
Agree or disagree, this is his stated public mantra, dating back 15 or 20 years, and he has conducted five years of his presidency (until Venezuela) based on those tenets.
Rather than high-level theorizing of strategy versus tactics, it may be Donald Trump changed his standards of behavior for the last 20 years because he saw something that scared him, and he knew he had to act to protect the United States.
Strategy is great until somebody threatens you with a nuclear bomb. As Mike Tyson memorably said, “everybody has a strategy until they get punched in the face.“
Apparently — unlike everybody else on here — I DO NOT KNOW one way or the other if the President saw an existential threat. But he did not change this hard, this quickly, without reason.
Those claiming he was “led into a war” with Iran, or “forced into a war” by Netanyahu ignore 40 years of provocation — during which thousands of Americans have been killed and tens of thousands wounded — by the Mullahs of Tehran.
Those who claim we had no strategy may be ignorant of the pentagon’s efforts in that area. There are numerous offices dedicated to contingency planning across every geography in the world. Critics may disagree with that strategy, but I would not suggest we executed without one. like a punch in the face, war has a way of destroying everybody’s perfect strategy.
President Trump seems to have learned the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, at least as applied to Venezuela. He is not nation building, he simply said, “figure it out on your own within these parameters.“ No drug dealing, etc.
Recognizing Persia is a 4000 year-old civilization (run by lunatics for only the last 50 years), I suspect he may follow that same path again.
He has already said as much by refusing to install the Shah.
The President appears to want an Iran run by Iranians of their choosing; that does not threaten its neighbors (that is why we have bases in the region, not to protect the Gulf states from Israel, but to protect the Gulf states from Iran); that does not threaten US interests in the region (the free flow of oil at market prices); that does not build nuclear bombs (because they really will kill everybody).
That last point is why a grand, overarching strategy may not even be possible? When dealing with people whose nihilist end state is, “kill everybody that disagrees with us — including their fellow Muslims — so we go to paradise” it’s a little difficult to build the perfect strategy around that one. Sometimes you launch when you have to.
If you think those same nihilists are getting a bomb? You better go as fast as you possibly can to stop it, using whatever strategy you have on hand at the time.
Recognize Iran has launched far more missiles at its Islamic neighbors than it has at Israel. That demonstrates their mindset as nothing else can. It is the nihilism I suggest above.
Thank God, the United States military and Donald Trump none of those missiles launched were nuclear tipped.
For many of us that IS the seminal point, and the rest is details.
Your first two points are false. He did employ war in his first term (Somalia, west Africa, and he killed Soleimani remember?) He has also ended no wars. Ever.
He says these things, but they’re not true.
The only president this century who both started no new wars and ended a war was Biden.
Trump actually pulled the troops out of Somalia in one of his last actions in office during his first term. Other than some counterterror work in Niger he was notably skeptical of the AFRICOM in its totality.
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/africa/2024-12-30/africom-trump-somalia-16322045.html
The killing of General Soleimani was a DOD operation, and qualifies as “a shot fired”. I stand corrected. Since I am already standing, I am applauding too.
Similarly, he deployed missiles on December 25 of 2025 to kill ISIS operatives in Nigeria — in conjunction with the Nigerian government — who were resident in that country and slaughtering Christians.
Regardless, none of these largely discretionary, kinetic incidents serve as proof points that President Trump or the United States acts without a strategy in Iran, or anywhere else.
A reasonable person could argue killing terrorist leadership at opportune moments globally serves a larger strategy of enforcing the rule of law, and saving innocent lives.
The fact no American lives were lost in these three actions (Soleimani, Niger or Nigeria) suggests those making these decisions are operating with a consistent strategy and with superb, tactical execution.
The idea of President Trump had no hand in peace deals struck in various locations around the world is belied by contemporaneous news reports on behalf of the participants thanking President Trump for his assistance in striking said peace deals.
Does the US not having a strategy or policy in Iran necessarily invalidate ends-ways-means as a concept? It sounds more like a case of unclearly defined (if at all) ends which then unravels the purpose of how a state employs (ways) the forces at it's disposal (means).
I'm not saying it's a be all and end all, but I do think ends-ways-means is a useful framework, especially for early exposure to strategy (eg start of an MA or junior-mid level staff course).
The problem with ends-ways-means is it imposes a linear framework on an inherently nonlinear phenomenon. It encourages the assumption that just more tactics at greater scale lead to a strategy, but it never works.
The U.S. really started using it in the 1990s, so what really invalidates it is the lack of strategic success we’re seen every time it’s tested in the real world.
A very well considered and argued response. I always found the ways part very fuzzy and hard to pin down... and you are correct in that it encourages linear thinking.