Senior Officer Defends Plan To Advance Slowly Toward Opposing Position

A senior officer commanding operations on a contested stretch of the front has defended what he describes as a "bold new strategic initiative," after it emerged that the plan is, in every meaningful respect, identical to the plans that preceded it.

The initiative, presented to junior staff as a decisive change of approach, consists of the men climbing out of the trench at an appointed hour and advancing slowly, on foot, toward a fortified position several hundred yards away that is held by a well-equipped opposing force and has not moved.

The officer concerned has not personally advanced toward the position. He has issued the plan from a substantial residence some distance to the rear, where sources describe an excellent table, an attentive staff, and a large map.

Asked how the new initiative differed from the previous one, the officer indicated the map. Asked how it differed from the one before that, the officer again indicated the map, and observed that the front line had, over the relevant period, moved by an amount he characterised as "considerable" and which observers have measured at approximately the width of the table.

---

"A bold plan, boldly conceived, and boldly mine"

Reflections from headquarters, where the strategy is

I have grown weary, frankly, of the suggestion that there is no plan. There is always a plan. I have one in front of me now. It is on the map.

The plan is this. At dawn, the men will climb from the trench and proceed, at a steady and dignified pace, toward the enemy. I want to stress the word bold, because it is a bold plan, and I conceived it boldly, in this chair, after an excellent lunch.

People will say it resembles the last plan. I would gently point out that the last plan was a triumph of clarity, and that improving on perfection is the act of a fool. The men advanced. They advanced slowly. They advanced toward the enemy. What more, I ask you, does a plan require?

It has been put to me that the previous plan did not achieve its objective. I reject the framing. The objective was to advance, and advance we did, magnificently, by a distance I can describe without exaggeration as nearly the length of this very room. That the men did not all return is regrettable, but I would remind the critics that boldness has a cost, and that the cost is, by long tradition, borne some way forward of where I am sitting.

I am aware there are those who feel the plan would benefit from variation. To them I say: a great general does not change his plan because the plan keeps producing the same result. A great general changes his trousers, perhaps, before dinner, but not his plan. Consistency is the soul of command.

We go again at dawn. Boldly. Slowly. Forward. As ever.

---

A leadership question that answers itself

Defence-sector commentators say the episode raises familiar questions about strategic decision-making conducted at a distance from the consequences of the strategy.

KM

What you are looking at is a transformation programme with no transformation in it. The vocabulary is all motion — "bold," "new," "initiative," "decisive" — and the underlying action is unchanged from the last cycle and the one before that. I have sat in boardrooms that do exactly this. You rebrand the identical plan, you present it with conviction, and you measure success by the confidence of the presenter rather than the position of the front line. The tell is always the same: the person describing the bold new direction is the one person who will not be travelling in it.

DP

The language is worth dwelling on. He repeatedly frames repetition as a principle — consistency, clarity, refusing to "change the plan because it keeps producing the same result." That is not strategy; it is a man who has confused stubbornness with conviction and distance with calm. What strikes me most is the spatial detail. He measures every advance against the furniture in his own room, because the room is the only environment he actually occupies. The plan is being assessed by someone for whom the worst case is a slightly delayed dinner.

DT

From a loss perspective the figures simply do not support the word "bold." Bold implies an assessed risk taken in expectation of a proportionate gain. Here we have a repeated action with a known and severe cost, undertaken to secure a gain measured in yards, against a position that is heavily defended and entirely stationary. I have adjusted claims on far smaller exposures. If a client kept filing the identical incident and calling it a new initiative each time, we would, at minimum, be reviewing the premium.

Staff officers familiar with the planning process maintain there is no mystery to the situation. The plan is widely understood by everyone involved, including the men expected to carry it out, who are reported to grasp it with particular clarity.

---

From the line and the rear

---

Community Poll

Community Poll

Latest reader breakdown

Is repeating the same plan and calling it new a sign of strong leadership?

Yes, consistency is a virtue7%

No, it is the same plan78%

Only if you are observing from the rear15%