Rumelt on strategy (II): His analysis of 'bad strategy' brings to mind Iraq, 2003-06

I found Richard
Rumelt's book
on strategy uneven -- I liked the first half more than the second. Still, there
are interesting and provocative thoughts and insights throughout. Rumelt tends to argue by
assertion, which I like, because you see where he stands and can consider if
his assertion matches your experience.

"Strategy is at least as much about what an organization
does not do as what it does." That's an interesting point to consider in the
context of the current round of defense budget cuts. Also, consider it in terms
of the U.S. involvement in the Libyan rebellion.

One of his strongest chapters is his third, titled "Bad
Strategy," which just by itself is worth the price of admission. Reading it
brought back a lot of memories of 2003-06 in Iraq. "To detect a bad strategy,
look for one or more of its four major hallmarks," he advises. To wit:

Fluff. Fluff is a form of gibberish masquerading as
strategic concepts or arguments."

"Failure to face the challenge. Bad strategy fails to
recognize or define the challenge."

"Mistaking goals for strategy. Many bad strategies are just
statements of desire rather than plans for overcoming obstacles. . . . Bad
strategy is long on goals and short on policy or action. It assumes that goals
are all you need."

Check. Check. Double check.