Nickel and DIMEd

Trading DIME’s “Participation Awards” for Mutually Reinforcing Capabilities

[Note: This is a long working paper at 7,100 words and may be truncated when sent through email. Read the full version from the Substack app or your browser. The unabridged paper is also archived as a PDF at SSRN. A condensed adaptation is forthcoming at Small Wars Journal.]

How a government conceptualizes national security inevitably dictates how it organizes its apparatus. If our foundational mental map is fractured, our execution will be, too. For decades, the dominant cognitive model for American statecraft has been DIME (Diplomacy, Information, Military, and Economics). But as the complexity of global challenges has grown, so did the bureaucracy’s fear of being left out. DIME soon bloated into DIMEFIL, bolting on Finance, Intelligence, and Law Enforcement, and later into MIDFIELD by adding Development. This expansion was not driven by strategic clarity; rather, it functioned as the ultimate interagency “participation award,” ensuring departments had a letter and a designated seat at the table.

The unintended consequence of this model is severe: DIME (or DIMEFIL/MIDFIELD) does not clarify national power; it fractures it. By categorizing national capabilities by agency zip code, the model locks our national security thinkers into artificial silos. It trains planners to ask, “Is this a diplomatic problem or a military problem?” instead of synthesizing the two.

This working paper is not a prescription for a specific grand strategy, but rather a blueprint for the apparatus required to enable one. To build a national security enterprise capable of achieving its strategic objectives, we must completely dismiss the DIME model. We must trade our bureaucratic participation awards for a framework built on capabilities—capabilities that do not stay within lanes but are mutually reinforcing.

Failing to embrace this shift ensures that process will continue to dictate purpose, perpetuating this bureaucratic capture of strategy. To understand how we arrived at such a fractured mental model, we must look backward. The historical progression of strategic theory is rooted in a much older, profound conceptual divide within strategic thought. At the heart of this divide lies a fundamental question of architecture: do the instruments of statecraft operate as an integrated, comprehensive fusion—an admixture—or do they function as distinct, modular silos that are added together upon the battlefield of international relations? This distinction is far from merely semantic or academic. It dictates the organizational structures of governments, informs the civil-military dynamic, determines the allocation of national resources, and ultimately decides how states wage war and secure peace.

The historical progression of strategic theory, stretching from the ancient maxims of Sun Tzu through the mechanics of Antoine-Henri Jomini, the realism of Carl von Clausewitz, and culminating in the modern synthesis of B.H. Liddell Hart, John Boyd, and Colin Gray, reveals a continuous tension. It is a tension between those who recognize conflict as a complex, organic system demanding comprehensive integration, and those who attempt to reduce it to manageable, independent cylinders of power.

The bureaucratic application of DIME represents the triumph of the mechanical “addition” of forces operating at cross-purposes. A superior conceptual baseline stands in stark contrast. A series of 1918 U.S. Army General Staff reports explicitly recognized that the “strategic equation” of war encompasses four coequal factors: combat, economic, political, and “psychologic.” Retrospectively, I apply the label “PPCE” to describe this 1918 framework. Indeed, there is no evidence that anyone other than me, since the 1939 publication of James Mock and Cedric Larson’s Words that Won the War, has invoked this construct.¹ Unlike DIME, the PPCE concept maps power to mutually reinforcing functional effects rather than matching tasks to the organizational chart of the federal government. The PPCE construct intrinsically demands a true admixture.

Scholars of strategic theory often debate the extent to which a state’s political and institutional structures dictate its strategic execution. In his analysis of Clausewitz, Antulio J. Echevarria II, U.S. Army War College professor of strategic competition, notes that the concept of Politik encompasses both rational policy and the messy reality of institutional politics. Echevarria points out that because military institutions are shaped by these internal realities, “a purely military perspective cannot exist at all.” Yet, this is exactly the false premise upon which the DIME framework relies. By artificially isolating the Military from Diplomacy and Economics into distinct silos, the model attempts to sever intertwined capabilities. It treats national power as a collection of static “inanimate instruments,” to use Echevarria’s label, rather than dynamic, mutually reinforcing capabilities. Furthermore, Echevarria warns that competing institutional agendas often drag strategy out of the realm of rational policy and into the friction of politics.² The bloat of DIME (and DIMEFIL/MIDFIELD) illustrates this phenomenon: it is a product of interagency politics (with the bureaucratic participation award) rather than integrated strategic policy. When we allow these artificial agency lanes to govern our conceptual models, we succumb to a form of bureaucratic determinism, ensuring that process dictates purpose, and artificially limiting our ability to execute an effective grand strategy.

This mechanistic mindset of addition extends beyond the bureaucracy to trap contemporary strategic theorists. In attempting to adapt classical theory to modern conflict, defense scholars frequently mistake dynamic, relational concepts for static, structural diagrams. Believing foundational constructs omit modern realities like industrial capacity and institutional innovation, they attempt to modernize theory by bolting new components directly onto it. For example, defense strategist Frank Hoffman argued that Clausewitz’s Trinity is incomplete because it neglects technology and economics, proposing to replace the traditional triangle with a five-element “Pentagonian” framework.³ David Maxwell, an irregular and political warfare scholar, expanded on this impulse, suggesting the model requires an eight-sided “octagon” to encompass political warfare.⁴

While Hoffman diagnoses a historical blind spot regarding industrial capacity and technological adaptation, and Maxwell emphasizes the necessity of political warfare, their proposed solutions exemplify a profound strategic dysfunction that I label the Polygon Fallacy.

The Polygon Fallacy is the false premise that strategic complexity can be managed by simply expanding the geometry of our mental models. Classical frameworks were originally conceived as relational systems suspended in tension. By transforming these concepts into rigid geometric shapes, theorists inherently freeze them. Consequently, when they attempt to account for new operational realities, their instinct is not to analyze how the new reality alters the entire system, but to draw another side on the shape.

This geometric expansion is the intellectual zenith of the addition mindset. It is the theoretical equivalent of the bureaucratic reflex that bloated DIME into DIMEFIL and MIDFIELD. Adding a node for “technology” to a pentagon is conceptually identical to bolting letters onto DIME: both actions treat national power as an administrative accounting exercise rather than a test of synthesized consequence.

The Polygon Fallacy creates a dangerous illusion of comprehensiveness. By drawing an octagon, strategists believe they have accounted for the totality of conflict. In reality, they have merely constructed an eight-cylinder engine where each piston fires in isolation. Strategy does not require a pentagon or an octagon any more than it requires a seven-letter acronym; it requires an admixture. By merely adding new sides to a shape, we perpetuate the illusion that elements like technology, economics, or political warfare exist as separate, modular variables to be mechanically coordinated by a central planner. Whether waging war or waging peace, technological capacity does not exist on its own distinct side of a shape; it fundamentally alters the physical reality, accelerates the element of chance, and continuously redefines the political objectives simultaneously.

The United States struggles to arm itself for contemporary statecraft because it permits polygon-builders and acronym-generators to dictate the evaluation of power. Success cannot be quantified by treating information or technology as discrete, supply-side munitions, nor by logging independent interagency tasks. Instead, true evaluation must focus on the ultimate political objective: whether these mutually reinforcing efforts enable progress toward that goal. Evaluating this progress requires measuring a state’s ability to shape minds, wills, and physical realities across the entire continuum of statecraft—from steady-state peace to open warfare—rather than tallying institutional outputs. The narrow, isolated application of power—the methodology of addition—strips the state of strategic depth. To navigate the realities of contemporary statecraft, policymakers must discard structural scorekeeping and rebuild an architecture of strategy that demands the fusion of admixture over the compartmentalized sum of addition.

The Lexical and Philosophical Divide: Admixture vs. Addition

To understand the modern dysfunction in strategic architecture, we can trace the fault line back to a critical, contested translation of Carl von Clausewitz’s foundational text, On War. Clausewitz’s assertion that war is a continuation of political intercourse forms the bedrock of modern strategic thought, but the precise English translation of the mechanism of that continuation has profoundly shaped U.S. strategic culture.

The debate centers on Clausewitz’s original German phrasing: nichts anderes als and Beimischung. The continuity of this translation into English is vital. In 1873, Col. J.J. Graham rendered Beimischung as “a mixture of other means,” a phrasing cemented in American military thought by Col. F.N. Maude’s widely read 1908 republished edition.⁵ The intelligence officers who authored the 1918 U.S. Army General Staff reports would have read Clausewitz either in the original German or through this exact 1908 translation. Both Beimischung and Graham’s “mixture” convey an integrated blending rather than a modular assembly, providing direct conceptual continuity for the PPCE framework. Decades later, translator O.J. Matthijs Jolles refined this continuity in 1943, choosing the more precise “admixture” to render Clausewitz’s famous dictum: “We maintain, on the contrary, that war is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse with an admixture of other means.”⁶

The term admixture dictates a metallurgical or chemical fusion. In an admixture, constituent ingredients are blended, fundamentally altering the properties of the whole. Within this paradigm, one cannot extract military action from political consequence; one cannot isolate psychological shock from economic sanction. Planners cannot divorce the psychological realities that shape and constrain political options, nor can they isolate the psychological effects of military action. They flow through one another, creating a synthesized reality.

Conversely, the influential 1976 translation by Michael Howard and Peter Paret renders the same passage differently: “War is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means.”⁷ The term addition introduces a modular, mathematical relationship to conflict. It implies that war does not alter the nature of political intercourse, but stacks a new, separate block of violent means alongside it. It suggests that policy can proceed on one track while military violence proceeds parallel on another.

This linguistic divergence mirrors the structural divergence in how governments choose to apply power. George Kennan, the intellectual architect of the early Cold War containment strategy, understood subversion required a total admixture of overt alliances, robust economic measures, and psychological warfare.⁸

If a strategic establishment subscribes to the Howard/Paret “addition” theory, it permits the construction of a government of separate cylinders. This provides the intellectual justification to create a diplomatic corps, an economic treasury, and a military apparatus that operate independently.⁹ The admixture theory proves such bureaucratic isolation is incompatible with the reality of conflict, which Clausewitz described as a “paradoxical trinity” composed of primordial violence, chance, and political subordination.

The Antiquity of Admixture

The depth of a strategic theory is intrinsically tied to its willingness to embrace the chaotic admixture of human conflict, rather than retreating into the sanitized, intellectually comfortable isolation of addition.

Ancient strategic theory, unburdened by the rigid bureaucratic structures of the modern nation-state, naturally gravitated toward admixture. Sun Tzu’s The Art of War represents a foundational text of integration, combining what modern analysts compartmentalize as political, information, economic, and military power.¹⁰ Sun Tzu did not view these as separate tools residing in different governmental departments waiting to be added sequentially to a campaign plan. He viewed them as a single, continuous spectrum.

Modern defense establishments struggle with this reality. Competitors and adversaries of the United States grasp the admixture concept, whether through instinct or adaptation. An American “Maginot Mentality” that overemphasizes military-based deterrence encourages, if not forces, these actors to bypass this singular front. While the U.S. strategic framework remains static, these actors learn to adapt, viewing competition as a holistic endeavor where economic coercion, psychological manipulation, and localized violence are fused. When U.S. planners, blinded by the segregated DIME construct, observe this integration, they fail to recognize it as fundamental statecraft. Instead, the U.S. national security community invents novel buzzwords like “hybrid warfare,” “lawfare,” or “cognitive warfare.” These terms do not reflect new concepts; they identify the basic admixture of power that competitors and adversaries have mastered. Planners invent these terms because bureaucratic cylinder-vision conditions them to view anything outside the traditional, isolated military construct as an anomaly. To an admixture thinker, “hybrid warfare” does not exist; it is the natural, integrated application of statecraft.

While Sun Tzu provided the ancient blueprint for functional integration, it was Clausewitz who provided the theoretical rigor required to understand this admixture in the context of the modern state. He viewed war not as an engineered machine, but as a living, breathing organism—a “true chameleon” that continuously adapted its characteristics to the given political and social environment.

Clausewitz understood that war deals inherently with “living and with moral forces.” Because of this inherent vitality and unpredictability, war could never be reduced to an absolute science or a set of isolated variables. The military element cannot exist in a vacuum; it is constantly subjected to the overwhelming forces of chance, the friction of reality, and the passions of the people. This is the essence of his “paradoxical trinity”—composed of primordial violence (the people), chance and probability (the military command), and political subordination (the government). To view these elements as separate cylinders is to fundamentally misconstrue On War.

Clausewitz recognized that the introduction of violence into political intercourse has the potential to stoke escalatory measures at the strategic level, altering the political objectives themselves. This feedback loop—where the means influence the ends just as the ends dictate the means—is the defining characteristic of an admixture.

Jomini and the Science of Isolation

If Clausewitz serves as the philosopher of admixture, Antoine-Henri Jomini is the architect of addition. His relevance to modern interagency failure is not historical trivia; it is foundational. Jomini provide the theoretical blueprint for the structural failures that paralyze American strategy today.

Seeking to reduce the chaotic violence of the Napoleonic Wars to a predictive system, Jomini defined warfare as a rational science governed by immutable, geometric principles. He categorized strategy restrictively as “the art of making war upon the map.”¹¹ While he acknowledged the ultimate supremacy of politics, his framework actively cordoned the statesman off from the general. In the Jominian worldview, politics dictates the initial objective, but once the campaign begins, political influence must be aggressively minimized. The military must be left alone to operate within a vacuum of pure engineering.

This conceptual divorce provided the intellectual permission structure for the modern bureaucratic cylinder. It established the operational precedent for what became the American “objective control” model of civil-military relations—the ingrained belief that politicians set policy and then step aside, allowing professionals to execute the war in a clean, sanitized box. When this isolation inevitably fails to produce political victory, the Jominian framework offers a ready alibi, shifting blame to political interference or media betrayal. The enduring American complaint—whether in the wake of Vietnam or during 21st-century counterinsurgencies—that “the generals were not allowed to win” is the ultimate expression of this pathology. It treats political and informational realities not as the very fabric of strategic conflict, but as unfair contaminations of a pure engineering exercise. Elevating this operational isolation into a framework for national power hollows out strategic depth. It codifies bureaucratic segregation, ensuring that American statecraft remains an exercise in parallel addition rather than unified admixture.

The Bureaucratic Capture of Strategy

This additive fallacy births the Maginot Mentality of statecraft: the conviction that a state can construct static cylinders of defense while ignoring the fluid requirements of psychological, political, and systemic maneuverability. Following World War I, French planners poured resources into concrete and steel silos, treating national security as a simple addition of fortifications. When the German army easily bypassed them, the static defense crumbled. As Henry Kissinger warned in 1955, exclusive reliance on an isolated cylinder of power creates a “Maginot mentality,” a strategic paralysis that leaves a nation vulnerable in the grey areas of peripheral conflict.⁠¹² Adversaries exploit this vulnerability by fusing economic coercion, psychological manipulation, and localized violence to subvert partner nations, fracture alliances, and hollow out American influence.

The U.S. government systematically replicates this exact architectural error in its national security apparatus. By constructing disjointed DIME (Diplomatic, Information, Military, Economic) silos, Washington built a bureaucratic Maginot Line. It establishes the State Department, the Department of Defense, and the Department of the Treasury as separate bastions, assuming that stacking these silos side-by-side equates to grand strategy.

The institutional segregation of the early Cold War laid the precise groundwork for this strategic isolation. In 1953, the government definitively violated the principle of political-informational admixture by severing the information function from the Department of State, spinning it out into the newly independent United States Information Agency (USIA). Today, well-meaning but misguided calls to “bring back USIA” clamor for its resurrection, operating under the exact same Jominian fallacy: the naive belief that modifying an organizational chart will magically yield strategy, synthesis, and action. It will not. Moving boxes merely shifts the boundaries of the silos; it does not dissolve them. Without unified strategic direction, any resurrected agency is instantly captured by the same bureaucratic gravity that orphaned the informational element in the first place.¹³

Rather than correcting this administrative Maginot Line, the defense establishment doubled down on the additive logic. As the complexities of modern governance grew, planners simply stapled more letters to the acronym, expanding DIME into DIMEFIL (Diplomacy, Information, Military, Economics, Finance, Intelligence, Law Enforcement). The taxonomy then escalated into absurd configurations. In 2018, Joint Doctrine Note 1-18 introduced MIDFIELD, reordering the letters to encompass Military, Informational, Diplomatic, Financial, Intelligence, Economic, Law, and Development.¹⁴

These variants gained currency as planners sought to encompass growing operational complexity, even as the endless additions exposed the fatal defect of the model. Adding “Finance” or “Law Enforcement” to a checklist does not improve strategic thinking; it merely invites the Treasury Department and the Department of Justice to interagency de-confliction meetings while ignoring the mutually reinforcing effects required to alter an adversary’s political will. Ultimately, these sprawling acronyms represent the final triumph of Jominian isolation applied to the administrative state.

The Devolution of DIME and the Orphaning of “I”

This exact institutional segregation justified the formal codification of the DIME framework. A genealogical investigation into defense and interagency archives reveals that DIME appeared in the 1980s almost magically, devoid of foundational strategic theory or rigorous academic pedigree.

The emergence of DIME was driven by administrative mandates rather than strategic innovation. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 forced the executive branch to systematically articulate its strategic vision, resulting in documents like the 1988 National Security Strategy that utilized rigid headers to detail how the United States would employ its instruments of power.⁠¹⁵ As DIME entered the military and interagency lexicon in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was introduced as a high-level coordinating tool designed to force distinct agencies to communicate and align their efforts.

However, by the mid-1990s—as seen in foundational doctrinal milestones like the 1993 iteration of Joint Publication 3-0—DIME rapidly devolved into a de-confliction tool, designed primarily to establish jurisdictional boundaries and keep agencies safely inside their respective lanes.⁠¹⁶ Finally, during the Global War on Terror, DIME calcified completely into a rigid, mindless bureaucratic checklist.

Crucially, when the DIME construct was formalized, it mapped directly to the organizational chart of the era. The “D” mapped to the State Department, the “M” to the Department of Defense, the “E” to the Treasury and Commerce Departments, and the “I” mapped to the USIA. The inherent intellectual bankruptcy of this structural map was fully exposed when the USIA was abolished in 1999. Following the agency’s dissolution, the “I” in DIME was no longer assumed to map back to the informational or public diplomacy elements that were folded into the State Department. Instead, the “I” was abruptly orphaned. The resulting vacuum sparked a protracted period of bureaucratic grasping, with agencies across the government scrambling to claim, fund, or redefine the newly vacant “Information” domain.

This behavior provides incontrovertible evidence that DIME was always an organizational chart rather than a functional theory of power. If DIME had been a true strategic framework, the function of information—the shaping of minds, wills, and political realities—would have remained conceptually secure regardless of which physical agency housed it. Instead, the loss of the physical agency resulted in deep confusion over the capability itself.

This exact organizational mapping mentality—the instinct to equate strategy with an inventory of government agencies—drove the subsequent acronym escalation following September 11, 2001. Confronted with non-state adversaries executing holistic strategies that ignored government organizational charts, American strategists realized the four-part DIME checklist failed to capture the complexity of the operational environment.

Instead of recognizing the fundamental flaw in the additive model itself, the bureaucracy responded exactly as it had to the loss of USIA: by attempting to map new agencies to the org chart. The addition of law enforcement, intelligence, and finance to the strategic lexicon was further evidence of this mapping instinct. Planners were not identifying new functional realities of war; they were simply hunting for new organizational boxes to check. Just as the loss of USIA caused a frantic grasping around for the “I,” the addition of new interagency actors caused a grasping around for new acronyms.

By treating strategy as an expanding inventory of agency toolkits rather than an integrated political effort, Washington completed its retreat from Clausewitzian synthesis. Breaking free from this paralysis requires abandoning additive checklists altogether and recovering a unified theory of strategy that restores the continuous admixture of politics, influence, and force.

Rediscovering the Admixture

The Interwar Foundation of Fuller and Liddel Hart

The 1918 U.S. Army General Staff report offered a remarkably prophetic insight, framing modern conflict as a holistic PPCE (Political, Psychological, Combat, Economic) admixture. However, this study was never formally adopted as institutional doctrine. Rather than embracing its integrated vision of statecraft, the peacetime establishment allowed the report to gather dust while defaulting back to comfortable, pre-war silos. Because the military and political leadership failed to institutionalize this lesson, the holistic nature of strategy was left uncodified, forcing interwar theorists to independently rediscover and rebuild the theoretical foundations of admixture.

In the 1920s, British military thinker J.F.C. Fuller attempted to integrate scientific principles with the realities of modern statecraft. While Fuller searched for a “science of war,” he recognized that this science could not be limited to troop movements; it had to encompass the broader material and moral capacities of the state. Fuller argued that grand strategy prepares the whole nation before the war, establishing a comprehensive foundation that prevents the military from operating in a vacuum.¹⁷

Sir Basil H. Liddell Hart further expanded the scope of strategy, pulling it away from the map-centric views of the 19th century. Liddell Hart defined grand strategy as the mandate to coordinate and direct all the resources of a nation toward the political object. He recognized that fighting power was merely one instrument among many, requiring the synchronized application of financial pressure, diplomatic isolation, and psychological influence.¹⁸

Crucially, Liddell Hart argued that while military strategy focuses narrowly on winning the war, grand strategy must look “beyond the war to the subsequent peace.” This long-term focus necessitates an admixture. A purely military approach (addition) that physically annihilates the enemy but breeds generational hatred and regional instability has failed grand strategically because it compromises the “better peace.” Liddell Hart viewed time as a critical strategic resource, acknowledging that power must be carefully calibrated to sustain the psychological and economic stability of the home front over protracted periods.

Boyd’s Moral and Mental Synthesis

Building upon this interwar foundation, mid-to-late twentieth-century theorists further eroded Jominian isolation by expanding strategic thought far beyond physical attrition. John Boyd pushed strategy deep into the cognitive, psychological, and systemic dimensions of human conflict. Though frequently reduced in modern military doctrine to a simplified tactical decision loop (the Observe-Orient-Decide-Act or OODA loop), Boyd’s strategic philosophy—captured in A Discourse on Winning and Losing—was a profound exploration of organic resilience and moral maneuver.¹⁹

Boyd argued that conflict occurs across three distinct, deeply intertwined domains: the physical, the mental, and the moral. The Jominian mindset hyper-focuses on the physical domain by counting personnel, weapons systems, and casualties inside neat operational boxes. Boyd demonstrated that the physical domain is the least decisive. Actual strategic leverage is exerted in the mental and moral spheres.

For Boyd, the essence of strategy requires a dual focus:

• Internal Cohesion: Preserving the moral and mental unity of one’s own system, fostering adaptability, trust, and shared purpose across the state.

• External Disruption: Penetrating the adversary’s cognitive and organic structure to generate isolation, confusion, paranoia, and paralysis.

Boyd’s synthesis completely dismantles the DIME framework’s separation of the “Military” from the “Informational” and “Psychological.” In Boyd’s framework, information and narrative are not peripheral support tools used to explain military action after the fact. Rather, kinetic operations, diplomatic maneuvers, economic pressures, and messaging are all moral and mental vectors designed to alter the adversary’s perception of reality and break their collective will. Boyd restored the understanding that war is an organic, psychological contest where moral cohesion far outweighs mere physical mass.

Gray’s Strategic Bridge

Colin S. Gray synthesized these insights into a definitive modern philosophy of statecraft, centering his work on what he termed the Strategic Bridge.²⁰ Gray recognized that the persistent tragedy of modern national security enterprises is the structural and intellectual gap between military instrumentalities and political consequences.

Strategy, Gray asserted, is not a static plan, an administrative checklist, or a department on an organization chart; it is the inescapable, continuous process that translates military (and non-military) force into intended political consequences. The strategic bridge is the connective tissue that ensures tactical action remains strictly disciplined by political purpose.

Gray launched a sustained critique against the technocratic operationalization of war. He warned that when a national security establishment treats war as a self-contained engineering problem, the strategic bridge collapses. The military executes brilliant tactical operations in a political vacuum, while civilian leaders issue vague political demands without understanding the physical and psychological limitations of the instruments they deploy.

Crucially, constructs like DIME exemplify the threat Gray warned against: bureaucratic obfuscation that replaces strategic thought with administrative taxonomies, mistaking a static inventory of tools for a dynamic theory of success.²¹ For Gray, statecraft cannot be partitioned into isolated agency silos or cataloged on a departmental checklist. Strategy is the art of weaving these instruments into a continuous admixture, ensuring that every operational act generates the specific political currency required by the state.

Revising the Framework

To rectify this persistent architectural failure, policymakers must abandon the additive DIME checklist and adopt an operational architecture that mandates admixture, actively correcting the additive mentality. The revised approach abandons nouns (institutions) and embraces verbs and functional realities (effects). Crucially, PPCE is not a four-sided polygon to replace a five- or eight-sided variant; it is a description of non-modular, coequal states of strategic matter that cannot exist independently.

This framework operates on three interlocking layers.

Layer 1: The Core Elements

Statecraft is re-anchored in four non-modular operational effects rather than institutional owners:

• Political: Generating the grand idea, consolidating domestic political will, marshaling coalitions of the willing and unwilling, and imposing dilemmas on adversaries form the guiding logic for all subsequent action.

• Psychological: The moral and mental domains, defined by the continuous struggle for minds and wills to shape action, sustain or fracture societal or political cohesion, and subvert adversarial decision-making.

• Combat: The application, or credible threat of physical violence to impose physical realities that alter the strategic calculus, serving as a direct expression of political will.

• Economic: The mobilization or restriction of capital, resources, and markets, alongside the application of targeted financial influence, to secure logistical endurance, induce foreign dependency, compel behavior, and project power.

Layer 2: The Binding Matrix (Information and Time)

These core elements do not exist in isolation; they suspend within a Binding Matrix of Information and Time—the omnipresent environment through which all strategic force is transmitted, perceived, and regulated.

• Information: Replaces its legacy status as a separate DIME-style pillar with recognition as an omnipresent environmental medium and operational accelerant. Information is both the medium through which physical and psychological actions are perceived by target audiences and the accelerant that determines the velocity with which strategic effects take hold. Because information operates as an environmental reality rather than a discrete munition, attempting to isolate it within a singular bureaucratic silo is akin to trying to contain gravity in a box.

• Time: Serves as the ultimate regulator of the strategic admixture. Time operates along two critical vectors: operational velocity (compressing adversary decision cycles relative to one’s own) and strategic horizon (governing whether short-term operational gains aggregate into a sustainable, long-term “better peace”).

Layer 3: The Institutional and Budgetary Apparatus (Where It Happens)

The first two layers remain conceptually inert without an operational apparatus driven by relentless leadership direction, budgetary alignment, and a synchronized strategic culture. The natural state of peacetime bureaucracy is Jominian addition; without active top-down intervention, Maginot silos inevitably reemerge to protect budgets, authorities, and organizational lanes.

Historically, the U.S. government attempted to construct this operational layer through Harry Truman’s Psychological Strategy Board (PSB) and Dwight Eisenhower’s Operations Coordinating Board (OCB). Yet these boards ultimately devolved into toothless coordination committees. They failed not because their structural logic was flawed, but because the national security apparatus succumbed to institutional capture. Strong-willed cabinet secretaries, wedded to the addition mindset, systematically starved these boards of authority and resources. Dean Acheson routinely fought the PSB to protect State Department equities, while John Foster Dulles firmly embraced Jominian silos, deliberately ejecting the International Information Administration (IIA) from the State Department to create the isolated USIA. Dulles cleared State’s plates of the informational function because he viewed statecraft as modular blocks rather than a synthesized whole.

This historical failure proves that moving boxes on an organizational chart achieves nothing if the leaders inside those boxes remain trapped in a culture of addition. Resurrecting defunct agencies like the USIA is a nostalgic exercise that treats the symptom rather than the disease. True strategic depth requires a systemic transformation of the institutional mindset, executed across three distinct lines of effort:

• The Admixture Mandate for Leadership: The President must condition Cabinet appointments on an ironclad commitment to the PPCE framework, with Jominian lane-protection actively penalized and corrected. Furthermore, this mandate cannot stop at the principal level; it must penetrate deep into the deputy, assistant secretary, and directorate tiers. Executive agencies must be led by individuals who require their teams to look instinctively within, across, and outside traditional departmental boundaries when formulating strategy.

• Interdependent Agency Planning: Functional interdependence is not a mandate for interagency committee rule or lowest-common-denominator consensus. Forcing every department into every plan guarantees strategic bloat. Rather, it is a leadership standard of operational coherence: leaders must require planners from inception to account for the total PPCE environment, ensuring departmental actions reinforce the primary strategy rather than generating self-inflicted friction. Under this standard, isolated planning that relies on late stage “de-confliction” is not a procedural oversight; it is a fundamental failure of strategic command.

• Educating Interdependent Practitioners: The nation’s national security professional schoolhouses, including the War Colleges, National Defense University, and the Defense Information School, alongside civilian foreign policy and national security graduate programs, must integrate this capability-driven model into their curricula. The goal is to cultivate practitioners of synthesis rather than silo-bound specialists.

The Admixture Litmus Test

Statecraft is inherently interactive and continuous, demanding that the framework govern offensive campaigns, immediate crisis management, and the continuous waging of peace. When adversaries strike, they seamlessly fuse their instruments of power to exploit Western institutional fractures. The diagnostic filter for any strategy must therefore evaluate action, reaction, and peacetime shaping against the holistic reality captured by the U.S. Army General Staff in 1918:

It is necessary to remember, in the first place, that this war is not one that is being fought by the military forces alone. There are economic, psychologic, social, political and even literary forces engaged, and it is necessary for us in order to defeat the enemy, to understand fully the strength of each. Nor can the investigation stop with the forces of the enemy: it must extend to each country in the world and to every people. The question of winning the war is far too complicated and far too delicate to be answered by a study of only the powers and resources of the nations in arms.²²

Guided by this logic, every strategic concept must pass through a deliberate diagnostic filter. The PPCE framework does not shackle leadership with bureaucratic vetoes; rather, it ensures that if leaders choose a narrow strategy, they do so with eyes wide open—not because a flawed strategic map blinded them to critical dimensions. To achieve this clarity, planners evaluate options through two distinct lenses:

• Proactive Synthesis: Planners analyze how national capabilities multiply one another simultaneously rather than sequentially. They evaluate how physical posture (Combat)—which, as Clausewitz observed, is never a prelude to political action but an inherently political act—instantly shapes the cognitive landscape (Psychological) and alters material conditions (Economic) to achieve overarching political ends and secure international legitimacy (Political). To prevent a regression into siloed thinking, planners must view these dimensions beyond departmental boundaries: the Political dimension is not a synonym for state-to-state diplomacy, but the animating guiding intelligence and domestic consensus; the Psychological dimension is not a modular box for public affairs, but the fundamental domain of human will and moral cohesion. If a strategy ignores a core dimension, treats them as sequential phases, or relies on mere optimism—remembering that hope is not a strategy—the plan remains an additive exercise. Proceeding with a fragmented framework becomes a conscious leadership decision to accept strategic risk, rather than an accidental oversight.

• Reactive Integration: When responding to an adversarial move, planners must reject the bureaucratic reflex of routing a crisis to a single agency based on its organizational zip code and walking away. The structural failure in modern crisis response is not the designation of a lead agency, but the leadership vacuum that follows: no entity is empowered to exercise cross-functional strategic command over the total response. Without dedicated authority orchestrating the interplay of national power, “lead agency” degrades into an excuse for institutional abdication, reducing interagency partners to passive observers or late-stage deconfliction assets. True reactive integration demands a fluid, multi-dimensional admixture where targeted economic leverage (Economic) and combat posture (Combat) are synchronized to fracture the adversary’s strategic narrative and erode their moral resolve (Psychological), all while relentlessly securing overarching political ends and legitimacy (Political). When an adversary strikes across multiple vectors, failing to command the entire synthesis ensures the state merely absorbs cost rather than shaping the outcome.

Ultimately, evaluating a strategic option through these dual lenses exposes whether a concept treats national capabilities as parallel, modular blocks to be checked off an agency checklist. Stripping away bureaucratic inertia, the choice to execute an additive plan rests entirely with leadership. However, the PPCE framework ensures that choosing a narrow, siloed path becomes a transparent decision made with full awareness of its strategic risk.

Conclusion

The debate over DIME’s effectiveness is fundamentally a debate over the nature of conflict and statecraft. Those who view strategic competition through a rigid, mechanical lens believe national power can be divided into neat, administrative pillars. This mechanical reductionism treats grand strategy as an engineering problem—one solved by assembling modular, agency-specific capabilities in parallel lines. However, such narrow application consistently yields devastating grand strategic failures because it misapprehends conflict as a predictable transaction rather than an organic, dynamic collision of wills.

The ultimate failure of the DIME model is that our adversaries do not respect our interagency boundaries. They do not neatly sort their operations into “D,” “I,” “M,” or “E” buckets for our bureaucratic convenience. While we conceptualize and organize our responses in administrative fragments, our competitors operate holistically, wielding political, psychological, combat, and economic power as a fused whole. By clinging to siloed lanes, we accept a self-imposed strategic disadvantage.

This fundamental structural flaw explains why contemporary efforts to expand strategic models through additive acronyms inevitably fall short. The insights of Frank Hoffman regarding technological adaptation and David Maxwell regarding political warfare are currently strangled by the very apparatus meant to execute them. Hoffman and Maxwell correctly diagnose severe deficiencies in our strategic depth, yet their solutions are forced to compete within a DIME-configured bureaucracy that treats their insights as minor additions to be merely de-conflicted at lower administrative levels. The PPCE framework creates the institutional home and conceptual architecture their diagnoses demand.

Moving beyond DIME requires far more than a structural redesign of the national security apparatus. It demands a fundamental paradigm shift in how civilian and military leaders conceptualize, command, and execute national security statecraft. Power must be understood through integrated, cross-domain actions rather than static agency lanes. True power lives in an admixture, where the application of economic weight, the shaping of psychological will, the posture of combat forces, and the pursuit of political ends do not simply support one another as adjacent vectors, but fuse into a singular, indivisible expression of political consequence. These are unified national capabilities, not separate agency letters acting in parallel.

Ultimately, evaluating strategic options through the dual lenses of Proactive Synthesis and Reactive Integration exposes whether a concept treats national power as an integrated capability or a bureaucratic checklist. Even the most meticulously designed framework remains a dead letter without relentless executive enforcement to overcome the institutional vacuum that currently plagues interagency planning. A state ultimately gets the national security apparatus its top leadership demands and possesses the discipline to maintain.

While a President lacks the daily bandwidth to personally enforce the mechanics of cross-functional planning, executive authority must remain fiercely uncompromising in demanding it from the Cabinet. Without an unyielding commitment to synthesis from top leadership, bureaucratic inertia will always pull the apparatus back into comfortable silos. If the Commander-in-Chief does not actively penalize silo-bound lane-protection, the bureaucracy will inevitably default to its institutional comfort zones. Left to their own devices, agencies will consistently prioritize institutional self-preservation, budgetary survival, and predictable lanes over the operational friction required for true cross-agency synthesis.

National security is not an acronym-building exercise, and the nation can no longer afford a strategic framework designed around handing out interagency participation awards. It is time to stop being nickel and DIMEd by our own silos and instead organize our statecraft, our leadership, and our national security apparatus around the mutually reinforcing capabilities the modern era demands.

***

Download this as a PDF from Substack or from SSRN.

1. Military Intelligence Division of the US Army General Staff, The Functions of the Military Intelligence Division, General Staff (Military Intelligence Division, General Staff, 1918), 42; James Robert Mock, and Cedric Larson, Words That Won the War: The Story of the Committee on Public Information, 1917-1919 (Princeton University Press, 1939), viii, 238.

2. Antulio J. Echevarria II, Clausewitz and Contemporary War (Oxford University Press, 2007), 91-92.

3. Frank Hoffman, “The Pentagonian Test: Expanding Clausewitz’s Theory.” (2026): accessed June 26, 2026, https://mickryan.substack.com/p/the-pentagonian-test-expanding-clausewitzs.

4. Email correspondence of June 26, 2026, shared with permission.

5. Carl von Clausewitz, On War, trans. Col. J. J. Graham (Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1908), vol. 3, 121.

6. Carl von Clausewitz, On War, trans. O.J. Matthijs Jolles (Modern Library, 1943), 596.

7. Carl von Clausewitz, On War, trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton University Press, 1976), 605.

8. George Kennan, “The Inauguration of Organized Political Warfare.” (1948): accessed September 1, 2020, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1945-50Intel/d269; George Kennan, “The Inauguration of Organized Political Warfare [Redacted Version] [Draft].” (1948): accessed September 1, 2020, https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/114320; George Kennan, Top Secret Supplement to the Report of the Policy Planning Staff of July 23, 1947: Certain Aspects of the European Recovery Program From the United States Standpoint (NARA, RG 59, PPS Files: Lot 64 D 563, Box 718, 1947).

9. This structural fragmentation was a central frustration for Dwight D. Eisenhower during his 1952 presidential campaign and early administration. Eisenhower repeatedly criticized the lack of integration across executive agencies, noting that economic aid programs operated autonomously while the State Department remained an “aloof cloister”— a dysfunction that directly drove his creation of the Operations Coordinating Board (OCB) and Project Solarium to force grand-strategic alignment. Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Campaign Address in Denver,” (Speech, Denver, CO, October 1952); Matt Armstrong, “The Politics of Information Warfare in the US,” in Hybrid Conflicts and Information Warfare: New Labels, Old Politics, ed. Ofer Fridman, Vitaly Kabernik, and James C. Pearce (Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 2019).

10. Sun Tzu, The Art of War, trans. Samuel B. Griffith (Oxford University Press, 1963), 77.

11. Antoine Henri Jomini, The Art of War, trans. G. H. Mendell and W. P. Craighill (J. B. Lippincott & co., 1862), 69.

12. Henry A. Kissinger, “Military Policy and Defense of the “Grey Areas”,” Foreign Affairs 33, no. 3 (1955).

13. Armstrong, “The Politics of Information Warfare in the US”; Matt Armstrong, “Operationalizing Public Diplomacy,” in Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, ed. Nancy Snow, and Nicholas John Cull (Routledge, 2020); Christopher Paul, and Matt Armstrong, “The Irony of Misinformation: USIA Myths Block Enduring Solutions.” (2022): accessed July 7, 2022, https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/07/the-irony-of-misinformation-usia-myths-block-enduring-solutions/.

14. U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Strategy, Joint Doctrine Note 1-18 (Washington, DC: U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2018).

15. Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, Public Law 99-433 (1986); The White House, National Security Strategy of the United States (Washington, DC: The White House, 1988).

16. U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Doctrine for Joint Operations, Joint Publication 3-0 (Washington, DC: U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1993).

17. J. F. C. Fuller, The Foundations of the Science of War (Hutchinson & Co., 1926).

18. B.H. Liddell Hart, Strategy (Praeger, 1967), 335-36; Nathan K. Finney, On Strategy: A Primer (Combat Studies Institute Press, US Army Combined Arms Center, 2020).

19. John Boyd and Grant Tedrick Hammond, A Discourse on Winning and Losing (Air University Press, Curtis E. LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education, 2018).

20. Colin S. Gray, Modern Strategy (Oxford University Press, 1999), 17; Colin S. Gray, Perspectives on Strategy (Oxford University Press, 2013), 160.

21. Colin S. Gray, The Strategy Bridge: Theory for Practice (Oxford University Press, 2010), 28–35; Gray, Modern Strategy, 17–23.

22. Military Intelligence Division of the US Army General Staff, The Functions of the Military Intelligence Division, General Staff, 6.