Strategy is a Competition of Ideas: What
Gettysburg and Afghanistan Teach Us
By
Tom Pike
Journal Article |
Sep 18 2012 - 4:30am
“
Chaos is the score upon which reality is written
”
Henry Miller
On July 2
nd
1863 General Lee made a decision at Gettysburg that shaped the American Civil War and the
world throughout the 20
th
Century. This decision was so monumental that Harry F. Pfanz, in his book
Gettysburg: The Second Day,
compared it to Peter’s three time denial of Jesus
[1]
. Major General Hood
asked three times to maneuver his forces to the high ground of Big and Little Round Top versus attacking
up the Emmittsburg Road. Three times his Corps commander Longstreet rejected his request, instructing
Hood that Lee’s orders were clear- attack up the road. If Hood had only disobeyed these orders or if Lee
had only consented to Hood’s view, the Confederacy would have turned the Union flank and destroyed
the Army of the Potomac. Washington, now in direct sight of the Army of Northern Virginia, would have
sued for peace allowing the Southern states to secede. This change would have radically altered world
history. America would not have been there to fight World I or World War II, there would have been no
cold war, and the American West would have become a new battleground for territory during the
westward expansion. The entire history of the 20
th
century was dramatically altered by this one
decision……maybe.
The challenge of military history and military strategy is knowing what matters. Whether one is trying to
determine which crucial decisions in Gettysburg resulted in the Union victory or trying to determine the
right strategy for the current Afghanistan/Pakistan campaign, determining what actions to take in an
overwhelmingly complex situation to cause a desired result is incredibly difficult. Knowing what actions
to take implies an understanding of how those actions will influence the situation and any decision maker
who knows that will have a distinct advantage. Examining the different possible variations of Gettysburg
and comparing this to the contemporary debate of the Afghan strategy places the difficulty of
understanding complex situations in sharp relief and presents novel ways to understand strategy. Instead
of just debating which strategy was or is superior for a given situation, this discussion attempts to conduct
an analysis on meta- strategy. Adopting this approach does not develop a super strategy but offers
insights into what strategies are and how they are developed.
In thinking about strategy, it is first important to understand that the world is overwhelmingly complex.
The truth of this complexity is evident by examining the potential variations that could have occurred at
Gettysburg. The battle of Gettysburg took place over 3 days from July 1, 1863 to July 3, 1863. It
composed of approximately 83,289 Union Soldiers and 75,054 Confederate Soldiers
[2]
. In this conflict,
many historians consider the Brigade Commander the lowest key decision maker whose actions could
have dramatic effect on the outcome of the battle.
[3]
Operating under this assumption the Confederacy
