Everyone thinks they know what strategy is. But the definition of strategy seems to be malleable. A bit like pushing on a badly under inflated balloon. If you press on one portion of the balloon, another portion rises. The limited amount of trapped air simply shifts. In the many various definitions of strategy, there is inevitably some amount of commonality of terms, but no two definitions are ever completely alike. For that reason, I will refrain from offering yet another version of strategy since most are workable.

However, there is a component of strategy and strategic thinking that is frequently overlooked, and I would argue, misunderstood. That component is patience.

Whether you like to use the term ‘geostrategic’ or ‘grand strategic’ or some other inflationary modification to describe your ideas, the simple truth is that if used properly, the word strategy, like the word ultimate, is already at the top end of the scale of planning, acting, or influencing. For that reason alone, it compels the planner or practitioner to consider the element of time. And as Hamlet complains in his soliloquy, “… ay, there’s the rub.”

For decades we have been slowly eroding our ability to be patient. Travel is the obvious analogy, but our desire to do more, to do it faster, and to pack more into each day seems to recognize no limits. We are all guilty of this trend, and I am as guilty as anyone, although I do pride myself on the fact that I use my iPhone as a … telephone! I have an unlimited data plan and have NEVER used even a whole megabyte in a month, but I digress …

Our ever-shortening attention spans combined with our ever-growing impatience is eroding our ability to understand that when it comes to strategy, seeing the results of our plans can take weeks, months, or even years. In this respect, military strategy, financial strategy, political strategy and any other that can be imagined, share commonalities. But as the Scots comedian Billy Connolly famously said “I want it now! I want it yesterday!” We can want whatever we like, but by definition, strategy requires patience. Sometimes excruciating amounts of patience.

For those readers not versed in military planning and strategy, allow me to make a Canadian analogy. Hockey is played in three periods. If the coach’s strategy is to wear down the opposing team, the first two periods are not really important except to keep the opposing team constantly skating. Keep the game going and take a minimal number of risks because the strategy is to wear down your opponent (classically referred to as a Fabian strategy after the Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus and his strategy against Hannibal.) George Washington used this strategy against the British and Ulysses Grant used it against Robert E. Lee. Pointedly, in each case the public was incensed because victory was taking too long, but back to hockey …

The third period is key because that is when the trap need to be sprung. The difficulty lies in our instant-gratification world. To many, the thought of having to wait forty minutes to watch the strategy begin to unfold can be excruciating. And just like the so-called journalists I have decried in previous posts regarding Ukraine, many are fully prepared to announce the team as losers because the game has not been won in the first two thirds of the allotted time.

What can we conclude? First, not understanding what strategy really is can cause amateurs and professionals alike to frequently seek tactical (or immediate) victory at the expense of a strategic gain or goal. Even if a quick victory is achieved (and it is most likely irrelevant) the so-called unintended consequences can last decades or even generations.

Naturally, it is not enough to merely appreciate the need for patience. It is even more important to understand what strategy actually is and how it relates to operations and to tactics. As I have mentioned previously, the German military was famously successful from 1938 to 1942 after which it lacked any strategy, which could bring them anything other than tactical gains and an occasional operational victory. Strategically, they were on a long slow, bloody, decline to ultimate devastation.