On Strategy

World War I is, bare none, the most tragic war fought the last thousand years. Some say the war started in the 1870's era and ended on the eve before World War II. From a technology and strategy point of view, this is true. Nothing quite boosts human mental prowess more than a deep and enduring crisis; the war started with outdated ideas and technology and ended with all the concepts that were used to wage the second tragedy in the same century.

Take, for example, the approach on the battlefield -- long lines of young men, trodding slowly towards their doom. And even those who arrived at the other end of No Man's Land could not hold on. There were no supplies, no backup, no mates to back up their positions. Seldom was terrain conquered for long. Reconquests of trenches bought dearly with the blood of many were the norm.

The British did not innovate their fundamental tactics. Their society at that time was highly stratified with little room for initiative in the lower strata. On the other hand, and contrary to popular belief, Germany was almost the inverse; it had a strong middle class. It invented a concept that nearly blew the Allies away -- Stormtroopers. Soldiers with decentralized decision making authority, often by non-commanding officers (NCOs in jargon, ie those below officer level). The tactics were aimed at deep penetrating units, circumventing tough defenses. New weapons were added to the arsenal; flamethrowers and grenades. The units had a high degree of self-coordination and self-reliance, without overbearing staff interference up to the level that they did not, and indeed, could not, know about. The unit was very successful and mostly due to incompetence of the over-hyped general Ludendorff (suffering from a nerve breakdown after his failed Peace Offensive), was the advantage thrown out of the window and could the Allies win the war.

Strategy permeates everything we do, even though we may not be conscious about it. It is about how we deal with everyday aspects. What do you do if someone treats you unkindly? Will you put up a fight? Offer friendship? Walk away? Strategies are most often not designed. Indeed, they evolve. You try something; doesn't work? Toss it out and try something else.

The best examples are those seen in nature. Think about the arms race between prey and predator, or how parasites and influenza viruses keep on adjusting to outrun what medicine can throw against it. The relentless pressure of evolution is the best evolver of new strategies.

Nor is strategy a single thing. It often consists of a number of characteristics that strengthen a generic theme; in companies, these could consist of culture, processes, skills, technology. The best companies in the world have strategies that work. If you break those down, you will find many, many parts that all interrelate and enforce each other. Do not even bother cherry-picking; it's bound to fail, because you do not have the overall strategy.

It makes me think. Can a really good strategy actually be designed? Can it come into existence without the pressure to change? Can it evolve into the target strategy withouth the cultural preconditions being in place?

I think pressure is essential. And so is the holistic view. Without pressure, no one will feel the need to change and without that energy nothing will happen. Without the holistic view, all the measures are shrapnel shots going nowhere. It needs to be part of a bigger picture, the parts reinforcing the whole.

As for evolution or design; strategy suffers from the same problem as software development. Everyone accept nowadays that the waterfall model of software development does not work and smart people invented the concept of iterative development, which for sure works a lot better. So it is with strategy. I firmly believe that it is not possible to design a 100% sound strategy upfront. You use your instincts and experience to aim as good as you can and then evolve the concept as you go.

Culture might well be the hardest one. How do you know you are not shooting for an impossible target? The Will to Succeed may well be blind to impossibilities. Do you have the right people on board? Are you yourself the right person to pull this through?

Personally, I stick to these rules:

• design and look at the big picture, see how it all interacts
  
• know what not to do and block that out
  
• relish a crisis; it offers the opportunity for change
  
• don't be too harsh on yourself for not seeing the entire picture (yet)
  
• be fair in appraising weaknesses
  
• learn from others, read biographies of successful people
  

Despite an intensive, lifelong fascination for anything that has to do with strategy, I still cannot claim to have mastered the subject, though I do claim to derive a lot of intellectual pleasure just thinking about it.

Gallipoli and the Course of History

Gallipoli is a small peninsula south-west of Istanbul, in modern day Turkey. During the first world war, when the Ottoman Empire decided to side with the Germans and the Austrian-Hungarians against the rest of the world, the British had the plan to blast their way through a range of forts that protect the narrow waterway all the way up to the Black Sea. Churchill, the well known World War II politician, was the main architect of the plan. The plan failed, because too many allied ships were destroyed, mainly by mines.

A couple of months later, the allies invaded the peninsula with hundred thousands of men, with the aim to conquer the forts by land and thus clear a path for the Navy to sail to Constantinople (now called Istanbul) in order to force their foes out of the war. The invasion met with stiff resistance from the Turkish defenders -- much to the dismay of the invaders! The allied forces were unable to advance even beyond the beaches and things soon bogged down into a trench war. One year later, the enterprise was abandoned, leaving over 200,000 allied and 300,000 turkish dead, mostly young men in the prime of their life.

Now what makes this a remarkable campaign is how it connects a number of strands in history.

For one, it was the first and only large-scale sea invasion against defended positions before D-Day. A lot of the things that were done right on D-Day, were learned from the failed Gallipoli campaign. The allies learned the value of air and naval support and they improved upon the whole design of the armored landing boat, which played a crucial role in Normandy. Furthermore, tactics were aimed at making progress land inwards as soon as possible, something which was not done in Gallipoli.

Just imagine what would have happened if the allies failed in their landing at the beaches of Normandy. It is accepted wisdom that the Soviet Union was on a roll and would have defeated the Germans eventually. The true value of D-Day, therefore, was not to ascertain the defeat of Germany, but to prevent the Soviets from conquering all of Western Europe. Just imagine France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Denmark and Western Germany, all under the oppressive boot of Stalin. What turn would the Cold War have taken? Would the USA still have won it?

Second, the reputation of Churcill was tarnished after Gallipoli. He was officially viewed as the instigator of the whole failed enterprise. Even though he was an advocate of initially pushing harder up the Dardanelles and forcing the straits (which would quite possibly have been successful), his more powerful compatriots thought otherwise and blocked that idea. And even though he was committed to sending more troops to Gallipoli, his compatriots once again blocked this. It is quite likely that if Churchill would have gotten his way, the campaign would have taken a different turn. But the First Lord of the Admiraly was young and without much political clout in that day and age.

Just imagine what would have happened if Churchill succeeded at Gallipoli and would have forced Turkey out of the War. Much less opportunity would have been had by the Turks to start their own new pan-Arab brand of Jihadism of which we feel the effects even today. Also, Churchill could have been a more formidable political force during the Rise of Hitler, possibly countering Chamberlain. Churchill would not have caved in to Hitler's demands -- he was a hawk. Germany was not as ready for war as mythology would have it. An early attack by the allied powers against the German infrastructure, especially during the Polish campaign, could have ended the war very early.

Third, a young man named Kemal was the Hero of Gallipoli. He showed remarkable courage under fire and was chiefly responsible for preventing the allies from making any progress. Kemal was a political enemy of the rather incompentent, but still powerful Enver. Riding the waves of his success, he prevailed and came to be known as Ataturk, the father of modern day secular Turkey.

Just imagine that Kemal did not have this success to feed his ambitions and the modern day Turkey project started by the Young Turks would have been a failure. Turkey has a strong economy and military nowadays. What if it did not reform?

Fourth, an Australian reporter made his name as a critic of the Gallipoli campaign. His famous "Gallipoli Letter", detailing the failure of the campaign, had a huge impact and was one of the main reasons why the campaign was cancelled. The name of this reporter was Keith Murdoch. He sowed the seeds of a media empire. His son, Rupert, took over from him and carried the empire to greatness. One can only hold in awe what the Murdochs achieved.

Just imagine what would have happened if Keith did not get his shot at fame by denouncing the Gallipoli campaign. Would he have been able to engineer a media empire?

So many questions that will never be answered. Nevertheless, ostensibly just a side show, Gallipoli may have had a greater impact on history than meets the eye.