Military Leaders Fall for Three Seductive but Ineffective Strategic Myths
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/by/david-french. "Opinion | General McChrystal on the Myths Misleading Trump in Iran - The New York Times." March 27, 2026. www.nytimes.com
The Gist
General McChrystal argues that American leaders keep falling for the same three military strategies that look good on paper but don't work in practice: secret operations, special forces raids, and bombing campaigns. He says these approaches seem easy but historically fail because they don't actually change how people think or their willingness to fight.
Conclusion
American military and political leaders are repeatedly misled by three seductive but historically ineffective strategic approaches when dealing with complex international conflicts
Premises
- Covert action appears attractive because it promises deniable results, but historically never stays covert and rarely achieves its objectives
- Special Operations raids demonstrate tactical competence but fail to change strategic facts on the ground, as shown by limited impact despite successful execution
- Air power campaigns are seductive because they promise decisive results through bombing key targets, but fail because outcomes depend on changing people's minds rather than destroying infrastructure
- Historical examples from World War II through Vietnam to Iraq demonstrate that each approach has consistently failed to deliver promised strategic outcomes
- Adversaries like North Vietnam and Iran have asymmetric commitment levels that make them resistant to pressure-based strategies
- Countries with 'extraordinary capacity to be bombed' can absorb punishment without capitulating, creating potential quagmires
Assumptions
- Historical patterns of military strategy failure will repeat in current conflicts
- Strategic outcomes are primarily determined by psychological and political factors rather than tactical military success
- American decision-makers consistently overestimate the effectiveness of technological and tactical superiority
- Asymmetric commitment levels between adversaries are a decisive factor in conflict outcomes