Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World

by Stanley McChrystal

Considered by many to be the ultimate strategic contest between two players, the game of chess originated in eastern India in the sixth century. Once considered a game for nobility, chess was thought to be an effective tool for teaching strategic thinking to future leaders. The various pieces—king, queen, rook, knight, bishop, and pawn—behave differently. The pawns, the most numerous, are the least maneuverable. The queen is the most maneuverable and thus the most lethal. The king, while relatively weak, is the figure that must be preserved. None can think or act for themselves. None eye the board from their unique vantage point and suggest moves. None cry warnings of danger. The chess player is all by herself to observe, decide, and act. From a distance, the Task Force’s fight in Iraq in 2004 looked like chess, more particularly the rushed bullet version of the game, where players have time constraints for each move. Empowered with an extraordinary ability to view the board, and possessing a set of units with unique capabilities, I was tempted to maneuver my forces like chess pieces against AQI. I could be Bobby Fischer or Garry Kasparov, driving my relentlessly aggressive campaign toward checkmate. But the chess metaphor quickly broke down. Even in its most rapid form, chess is still a rigidly iterative game, alternating moves between opponents. War in 2004 followed no such protocol. The enemy could move multiple pieces simultaneously or pummel us in quick succession, wi...