One of the interesting things is there’s no agreement domestically among civilians and military or internationally about what strategy is.
Each year, while the military senior service schools compete upon the fields of friendly strife in the event known as Jim Thorpe Sports Days, the U.S. Army War College hosts a different kind of contest: The Annual Army War College Strategy Competition. This contest pits teams from various U.S. military education institutions, international war colleges, and civilian universities against each other to see who can develop the best strategies to solve complex real-world national security problems.
Celestino Perez, the creator of the competition, joins host JP Clark to discuss this year’s event, which included teams from 7 U.S. professional military education schools, the Australian War College, the French Ecole de Guerre, West Point, and five civilian universities.
Perez highlights that the competition is less about winning and more about the learning process. It’s a chance for students to learn from each other, from faculty, and from a diverse group of judges, including top military and academic minds.
Podcast: Download
Celestino Perez is an Associate Professor at the U.S. Army War College. He serves as the Chair of Executive and Strategic Leadership and as the Director of the Carlisle Scholars Program. Tino teaches policy, strategy, civil and interstate wars, and military ethics. Trained as a political theorist, he has published in Armed Forces and Society, Peace Review, Journal of Military Ethics, and Perspectives on Politics, as well as professional pieces in Joint Force Quarterly, Military Review, Strategy Bridge, and War on the Rocks.
JP Clark is an associate professor of military strategy teaching in the Basic Strategic Art Program. He served in the army for twenty-six years as an armor officer and strategist. He holds a Ph.D. and M.A. in history from Duke University, an M.S.S. from the Army War College, and a B.S. in Russian and German from West Point. He is the author of Preparing for War: The Emergence of the Modern U.S. Army, 1815-1917 (Harvard, 2017). He is currently working on a history of U.S. military strategy in the Pacific from 1898 to 1941 that is under contract with the University Press of Kansas. He is the 3rd Editor-in-Chief of War Room.
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army War College, U.S. Army, or Department of Defense.
Photo Credit: Generated by Gemini
Beginning at about the 30:00 point in this podcast, and as to the idea of feasibility, Dr. Perez speaking here:
” … Strategies must be formed within an environment that is well-understood, and that environment includes constraints … ”
Question:
Re: the the 2025 Annual Army War College Strategy Competition and this competition’s requirement of having participants develop and present whole-of-government and military strategies — to address the real-world challenge of deterring large-scale combat with the People’s Republic of China — re: this such competition and requirement, it would be interesting to know what the winning team presented as to what they considered to be the well-understood environment, and the constraints relating thereto.
Is it possible that we can have access to this?
Related to my “well-understood environment, etc.,” question above:
a. If “war (and, thus, large-scale combat operations in the service of same?) is a continuation of politics by other means” and, thus, is a tool that can be used to achieve political goals.
b. Then, from that such perspective, what do we believe to be the political goals of China, which we believe that China is likely to use such things as war — and large-scale combat operations (etc.) — to achieve/to help achieve?
(From this such perspective, thus, and re: our “whole-of-government and military strategies,” we are not just seeking to “deter large-scale combat with the People’s Republic of China,” but, rather, are seeking to deter China from achieving/seeking to achieve it’s political objectives — via “war” and/or via other means?)