From Clausewitz on Strategy . . .

On strategic genius "If the mind is to survive this constant battle with the unexpected, two qualities are indispensable: first, an intellect that even in this moment of intense darkness retains some trace of the inner light that will lead it to the truth, and second, the courage to go where that faint light leads."

On the role of strategic theory ". . . all principles, rules, and methods increasingly lack universality and absolute truth the moment they become a positive doctrine. They are there to present themselves for use. Judgment must always be free to determine whether or not they are suitable. Criticism must never use these results of theory as laws and standards, but only as a person acting in war should also do: as aids to judgment."

On risk "It is not true that we should always choose the case with the least uncertainty. That would be a terrible mistake, as all of our theoretical deliberations show. There are instances in which the most daring course of action is the wisest choice."

On leadership qualities "The further we go up the chain of command, the more necessary it becomes for boldness to go hand in hand with the superior mind . . ."

On strategy "Everything in strategy is very simple, but that does not make everything easy."

s+b Best Business Books of the Millenium (Strategy)
s+b Best Business Books 2000-2001

Hrd in the Age of Globalization: A Practical Guide to Workplace Learning in the Third Millennium by Marquardt, Michael J.

3 great points
(1) If you still don't understand the difference between war and business [or war and anything else], read this book. (2) If you have a boss who doesn't understand that "a" strategy must always be revised and the test of a great employee is one who always has a Plan B, send him/her a copy. (3) That book learning isn't the same thing as experience - "Yet this is nothing but wretched book learning." p. 91. (4)FRICTION! "Friction is what makes the seemingly easy so difficult.", p. 89, a concept before it's time, one you should know well. p. 89 "Rather, the general [and the rest of us trying to do anything] must have knowledge of friction in order to overcome it, where possible, and in order not to expect a level of precision in his operations that simply cannot be achieved owing to this very friction." p.87 (5) the great love affair between Clausewitz and his wife (6) Negativity capacity - "being at ease when in bafflement or doubt and not seeking escapes at any cost." p. 86 (don't panic when it starts falling apart) (7) The many times von C mentions "heart" as well as "mind." (8) and that this great soldier started fighting at 13, died of cholera. Strategy is one of my top stengths on the StrengthsFinder(r), so to me it is innate. However, that does not mean my FIRST strategy is my only one, or the one that eventually works. In war, love, coaching, or trying to motivate a recalcitrant teenager. And how's this for an interesting point: "The weaker the defender's morale, the more brazen the attack must be." p. 121 I ordered this book by mistake - well, as von Clausewitz says, if you wish to enter that theater of strategy you "must abandon all hope of finding the certainties and control to which they are accustomed in other pursuits and consider the surrender of such hopes as a rite of passage in strategy." Many good things happen to the intelligent, experienced, philosophical and seasoned strategist by accident. Good read.

Impression on Clausewitz:Strategy has been defined as 'the employment of the battle as the means towards the attainment of the object of the war'. Properly speaking it has to do with nothing but the battle, but its theory must include in this consideration the instrument of this real activity -- the armed force -- in itself and in its principal relations, for the battle is fought by it, and shows its effects upon it in turn. It must be well acquainted with the battle itself as far as relates to its possible results, and those mental and moral powers which are the most important in the use of the same.

Strategy is the employment of the battle to gain the end of the war; it must therefore give an aim to the whole military action, which must be in accordance with the object of the war; in other words, strategy forms the plan of the war; and to this end it links together the series of acts which are to lead to the final decision, that is to say, it makes the plans for the separate campaigns and regulates the combats to be fought in each. As these are all things which to a great extent can only be determined on conjectures some of which turn out incorrect, while a number of other arrangements pertaining to details cannot be made at all beforehand, it follows, as a matter of course, that strategy must go with the army to the field in order to arrange particulars on the spot, and to make the modifications in the general plan which incessantly become necessary in war. Strategy can therefore never take its hand from the work for a moment.

That this, however, has not always been the view taken is evident from the former custom of keeping strategy in the cabinet and not with the army, a thing only allowable if the cabinet is so near to the army that it can be taken for the chief headquarters of the army.

Theory will therefore attend on strategy in the determination of its plans, or, as we may more properly say, it will throw a light on things in themselves, and on their relations to each other, and bring out prominently the little that there is of principle or rule.

If we recall to mind from the first chapter how many things of the highest importance war touches upon, we may conceive that a consideration of all requires a rare grasp of mind.

A prince or general who knows exactly how to organize his war according to his object and means, which does neither too little nor too much, gives by that the greatest proof of his genius. But the effects of this talent are exhibited not so much by the invention of new modes of action, which might strike the eye immediately, as in the successful final result of the whole. It is the exact fulfillment of silent suppositions, it is the noiseless harmony of the whole action which we should admire, and which only makes itself known in the total result.

The inquirer who, tracing back from the final result, does not perceive the signs of that harmony is one who is apt to seek for genius where it is not, and where it cannot be found.

The means and forms which strategy uses are in fact so extremely simple, so well known by their constant repetition that it only appears ridiculous to sound common sense when it hears critics so frequently speaking of them with high-flown emphasis. Turning a flank, which has been done a thousand times, is regarded here as a proof of the most brilliant genius, there as a proof of the most profound penetration, indeed even of the most comprehensive knowledge. Can there be in the book-world more absurd productions?

It is still more ridiculous if, in addition to this, we reflect that the same critic, in accordance with prevalent opinion, excludes all moral forces from theory, and will not allow it to be concerned with anything but the material forces, so that all must be confined to a few mathematical relations of equilibrium and preponderance, of time and space, and a few lines and angles. If it were nothing more than this, then out of such a miserable business there would not be a scientific problem for even a schoolboy.

But let us admit: there is no question here about scientific formulas and problems; the relations of material things are all very simple; the right comprehension of the moral forces which come into play is more difficult. Still, even in respect to them, it is only in the highest branches of strategy that moral complications and a great diversity of quantities and relations are to be looked for, only at that point where strategy

Impressions on the Authors:The authors should be banned from all literary circles and their works be renounced as a shameful endeavor in easy profits. In this text they have voided Clausewitz rich text; by presenting the matter in a haphazard; confusing lacking form style and sense.