While the U.S. military and Army has had strategic thinkers throughout its history, the United States Army's FA59 career field emerged in the late 1990's with its first cohort beginning duty in 2001, partially due to arguments made by General John R. Galvin in a 1989 article advocating for military strategists during a period of declining strategic expertise in the United States.

[1] U.S. Army Strategists have diverse backgrounds and advanced education which provide skills such as creative and critical thinking—allowing them to lead planning at organizations such as combatant commands and multinational headquarters.

Strategists do not command but instead rotate through repeated strategic-level assignments to obtain the strategic planning and leadership abilities necessary for development and to promote “a deep understanding of national defense issues and processes”.

[5] However, the resulting identifier did not equate to fully capable due to “the pressures of maintaining proficiency in traditional military skills in a limited career timeline”.

[7] Officers of the time were "usually educated in military history or international relations theory to improve their judgment when facing complex or poorly defined problem sets".

[10] At the time, there were over 400 strategists serving in diverse positions including Army and Joint commands as well as the U.S. government interagency such the Departments of State and Treasury.

[12] Army Strategists "form a core of skilled practitioners who support ... strategic leaders with a variety of activities".

They are instrumental in the translation of that guidance into actionable plans at the theater-strategic and operational-levels of war.”[1] Additionally, a focus on tactics versus strategic vision has caused challenges in recent historical cases.

In a 1995 monograph, Major General Richard A. Chilcoat observed a tendency in military officers of focusing on tactical and operational aspects of problems, even in strategic settings.

[15] Park echoed this, noting: “One observation that emerged from those conflicts [Afghanistan and Iraq] is that a singular focus on tactics is simply not enough to achieve more than localized success in engagements and battles.”[5] Francis Park states that military strategists must be able to bridge both policy and strategy (strategic art) as well as strategy and tactics (operational art).

[5] Moore states that “repeated strategic-level assignments provide the cornerstone of their development as strategists and set them apart from their contemporaries”.

[25] There is no standard career path for the Army strategist, and their assignments will contribute toward their professional development and promoting “a deep understanding of national defense issues and processes”.

[26] Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin E. Dempsey also stated in 2011 that developing strategic leaders "is a careerlong process that begins early".

[28] Others will serve as “speechwriters, members of commander’s internal think tanks, or as military assistants to senior defense officials”.