“After all, having a strategy is not synonymous with having a successful policy toward Africa. Indeed, Presidents Kennedy and Bush (43), in my opinion, had the most impactful records and neither penned a strategy.”
I’d agree with this and go one step further. A lack of a convoluted strategy probably helped. Perhaps their impact was due, at least in part, to their willingness and ability to just take action, which might have been more difficult if they were mired in a multi-page strategy. Better to have your actions set a tone and a course than to have a booklet of sub-actions. You can’t be good at three things if you’re focused on thirty.
My view: if you have a strategy, make it fit on a single page.
Jerry: Agree with the thrust of your point. A strategy must express a winning aspiration. If it does that, then it can have as many supporting activities as required to achieve that winning aspiration. It all comes does to making strategic choices. It is not a strategy without them. Talked about it in my review of this post in the Mail and Guardian newspaper today: https://mg.co.za/thought-leader/2025-05-05-what-really-went-wrong-with-the-africa-strategy-under-biden/
Having spent the last five years studying our strategic plans, I would agree with many of the critical points that you have made wholeheartedly. The fact that senior U.S. government officials use the term "strategy" to refer to these documents is telling. The U.S. Strategy Toward Subsaharan Africa was never a strategy. That is a category mistake. It was a strategic plan. There is a huge difference between the two. A strategy is not a document. It is a set of choices. Of course, one needs at least a quasi-strategy to formulate a strategic plan. But one doesn't need a strategic plan to craft a strategy. The reality is that strategies are rarely intended in the first place. They often emerge. Especially in turbulent and uncertain environments. One of the benefits of a strategic plan is that it can impose some guardrails on that strategy-making process. But it will never be a strategy. Full stop.
Judd-- could you expand on your thoughts on Kennedy and W Bush's successes? I understand what they were, of course, but were they "astrategic" and does that even matter?
Out of curiosity, would you say you recognized this or felt this way when you set out to write the Biden strategy, or is this a lesson learned for you? "We rarely start with a shared understanding of why we are writing a strategy or the rationale behind publicly releasing one."
“After all, having a strategy is not synonymous with having a successful policy toward Africa. Indeed, Presidents Kennedy and Bush (43), in my opinion, had the most impactful records and neither penned a strategy.”
I’d agree with this and go one step further. A lack of a convoluted strategy probably helped. Perhaps their impact was due, at least in part, to their willingness and ability to just take action, which might have been more difficult if they were mired in a multi-page strategy. Better to have your actions set a tone and a course than to have a booklet of sub-actions. You can’t be good at three things if you’re focused on thirty.
My view: if you have a strategy, make it fit on a single page.
Jerry: Agree with the thrust of your point. A strategy must express a winning aspiration. If it does that, then it can have as many supporting activities as required to achieve that winning aspiration. It all comes does to making strategic choices. It is not a strategy without them. Talked about it in my review of this post in the Mail and Guardian newspaper today: https://mg.co.za/thought-leader/2025-05-05-what-really-went-wrong-with-the-africa-strategy-under-biden/
Fun combination of history and prescription. I’ll be hanging around this Substack for sure.
Excellent and extremely candid appraisal. Well done, Judd!
Having spent the last five years studying our strategic plans, I would agree with many of the critical points that you have made wholeheartedly. The fact that senior U.S. government officials use the term "strategy" to refer to these documents is telling. The U.S. Strategy Toward Subsaharan Africa was never a strategy. That is a category mistake. It was a strategic plan. There is a huge difference between the two. A strategy is not a document. It is a set of choices. Of course, one needs at least a quasi-strategy to formulate a strategic plan. But one doesn't need a strategic plan to craft a strategy. The reality is that strategies are rarely intended in the first place. They often emerge. Especially in turbulent and uncertain environments. One of the benefits of a strategic plan is that it can impose some guardrails on that strategy-making process. But it will never be a strategy. Full stop.
The distinction between a strategy and a strategic plan is an important one. Very good point.
Judd-- could you expand on your thoughts on Kennedy and W Bush's successes? I understand what they were, of course, but were they "astrategic" and does that even matter?
Wait for the next post…15 May
Two week? You’re never gonna make it in the substack game.
This is very insightful. I am in the early stages of my career in Development Policy, and I am glad to have this kind of information early on.
Out of curiosity, would you say you recognized this or felt this way when you set out to write the Biden strategy, or is this a lesson learned for you? "We rarely start with a shared understanding of why we are writing a strategy or the rationale behind publicly releasing one."
I had my own view about its purpose, others had theirs. We never resolved it.
I knew it was important, but that experience (and writing about it!) has strengthened my conviction. (That's the goal of this substack.)