Military Strategy

Military strategy is a structured body of ideas designed to guide military organisations in pursuing strategic objectives that support wider political aims. Rooted in the Greek term strategos, meaning ‘general’, strategy originally referred to the art of troop arrangement and the command of armies. By the eighteenth century it acquired a more formal meaning, focusing on the planning and conduct of campaigns. Over time, military strategy has evolved into a central component of statecraft, linking military methods with political goals and bridging the gap between tactics on the battlefield and the overarching diplomatic, economic, and security considerations of national policy.
Military theorists from both Eastern and Western traditions have shaped the development of strategic thought. Clausewitz defined strategy as the employment of battles to achieve the ends of war, while B. H. Liddell Hart viewed it as the distribution and application of military means to fulfil policy aims. Sun Tzu’s principles of deception, adaptability, and asymmetry have had enduring influence across Asia and, increasingly, in Western political and business environments. In India, Chanakya’s Arthashastra also provided early foundations for strategic thinking and statecraft.

Fundamentals of military strategy

Military strategy encompasses the planning and execution of armed contests between opposing groups. It forms a subdiscipline of warfare and a tool of foreign policy, residing between the narrower scope of tactics and the broader framework of grand strategy. Whereas tactics deal with the arrangement and manoeuvre of forces in specific engagements, military strategy concerns itself with shaping the overall course of a conflict to secure national interests.
At its core, strategy seeks to balance resources—personnel, equipment, information, and time—against the capabilities and will of an opponent. It includes the preparation of forces, the multiple ways of influencing an adversary’s decision-making, and the identification of priorities that best support policy objectives.
Modern definitions emphasise this interdependence of military and political aims. NATO describes strategy as the manner in which military power is developed and applied to achieve national or multinational objectives. Senior military leaders such as Viscount Alanbrooke have expressed strategy as the process of deriving military objectives from policy aims, evaluating the resources required to meet them, and determining a coherent order of action. Montgomery similarly emphasised the distribution and application of military means to meet policy aims, distinguishing strategy from the more immediate domain of tactics.

Historical background

In the nineteenth century, strategy was understood as part of a triad of disciplines—strategy, tactics, and logistics—that governed the conduct of war. The boundary between strategy and tactics was not always clear, and decisions taken by commanders might be interpreted differently depending on context. Lazare Carnot, for instance, associated strategy with the concentration of force, reflecting the operational principles of the French Revolutionary Wars.
Strategic thought began to expand beyond purely military considerations. Statesmen such as Georges Clemenceau argued that war was too important to be left entirely to soldiers, promoting the idea of grand strategy—the coordination of all national resources, including diplomatic, economic, and informational power. Clausewitz maintained that strategy must serve political purposes and that military action was a means rather than an end, underpinning modern notions of civil–military relations.
By the twentieth century, new technologies and larger-scale conflicts led to more sophisticated strategic concepts. The First and Second World Wars required the integration of mass mobilisation, industrial production, coalition warfare, and global logistics. As warfare became more complex, strategy increasingly incorporated scientific methods, intelligence assessment, and detailed operational planning.

Principles of military strategy

Strategists have long attempted to summarise effective strategy through sets of principles. Sun Tzu articulated thirteen principles based on deception, flexibility, and knowledge of both self and enemy. Napoleon’s 115 maxims emphasised offensive action, concentration of force, and exploitative manoeuvre. Simpler expressions also exist, such as the American Civil War general Nathan Bedford Forrest’s dictum to arrive ‘first with the most men’.
Modern military doctrine often codifies these principles. The commonly cited principles found in United States Army field manuals include:

• Objective: Direct operations towards clearly defined and attainable goals.
• Offensive: Seize and maintain the initiative.
• Mass: Concentrate combat power at decisive points.
• Economy of force: Allocate the minimum necessary resources to secondary efforts.
• Manoeuvre: Position forces advantageously through flexible application of power.
• Unity of command: Ensure unified direction under a single responsible commander.
• Security: Prevent the enemy from gaining unexpected advantage.
• Surprise: Strike in ways that the enemy does not anticipate.
• Simplicity: Use clear plans and concise orders to enhance understanding and execution.

Opinions differ over how rigidly such principles should be applied. Some planners argue that adherence increases the likelihood of success, while others view warfare as inherently unpredictable and requiring continual adaptability. A recurring suggestion is that strategists should consider the conflict from the adversary’s perspective to anticipate their actions more accurately.

Development across historical eras

AntiquityEarly strategic principles emerged in ancient civilisations, informed by the campaigns of leaders such as Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Chandragupta Maurya, and Cyrus the Great. Strategies of annihilation, attrition, scorched-earth operations, blockades, deception, and guerrilla action were already well established. Advances in metallurgy, siegecraft, and mobility offered new opportunities for innovation.
The etymology of ‘strategy’ reflects these roots. Derived from the Greek strategia (generalship) and strategos (general), the term underscores the long-standing association of strategy with leadership and command.
Middle AgesIn the medieval world, strategic success often depended on mobility and psychological dominance. The Mongol armies under leaders such as Genghis Khan demonstrated how manoeuvre, encirclement, and sustained pressure could break larger or better-equipped foes.
Early Modern eraRenaissance thinkers began reassessing the relationship between military and civil spheres. Machiavelli’s Dell’arte della guerra explored the foundations of grand strategy and the role of disciplined citizen armies. The Thirty Years’ War showcased Gustavus Adolphus’s innovative operational methods, integrating firepower with manoeuvre more effectively than earlier European commanders.
By the eighteenth century, the term ‘strategy’ gained formal usage in European military literature, particularly following German translations of Byzantine texts such as Emperor Leo VI’s Tactica. The spread of the term reflected increasing recognition of strategy as a distinct area of study.
Napoleonic era and beyondNapoleon’s campaigns demonstrated the power of rapid manoeuvre, concentration of force, and decisive battle. His successes sparked debate among theorists, notably Clausewitz and Jomini, both of whom shaped nineteenth-century strategic doctrine but differed in their approaches. Clausewitz stressed the political nature of war and the unpredictability of battle, whereas Jomini sought to identify universal principles through geometric and operational analysis.

Strategy in modern thought

Modern strategy sits at the intersection of military art, political science, technology, and economics. It requires the coordination of armed force with diplomatic and informational tools to achieve national objectives. With the advent of nuclear weapons, cyber capabilities, space technology, and complex alliance systems, strategy now addresses diverse threats and environments.