I would argue Grant certainly didn't try to pursue a strategy especially because he tried to convince Lincoln to use North Carolina as a back door. Certainly I could name some more modern military forces that definitely used a strategy of attrition.
Leftyhunter
Yes.
I've seen this type of misuse all the time over the decades. Always online. Almost not worth addressing anymore.
(sigh) but, one more time ...
Folks sometimes (intentionally or unintentionally) misuse the term in order to apply it as a pejorative.
All warfare is attrition. All warfare. You seek to reduce the enemy's ability to fight, either through the physical reduction of his forces, the supply for his forces, or the moral will of his forces. Period. Full stop.
Calling any particular warfare a 'War of Attrition' is commonly a veiled (or not so veiled) pejorative, attempting to belittle the skillful and (typically) successful persecution of that warfare.
It is often a subtextual attempt to suggest a lack of skill in maneuver, interdiction planning, adaptation and execution.
Such misapplication is common in many 'sour grapes' type arguments found in non-professional venues. Very common. Countless times over the decades on history boards by less precise posters. And believe me, every successful historic commander has had it done to them by someone, somewhere on the internet - from spears to tanks.
Accepting that all warfare seeks to 'attrit' the enemy as noted above, a true 'war of attrition' is a non-clever exchange of soldier for soldier - pure reduction of force - without the other skills mentioned.
Verdun is a classic example of that correct definition. No maneuver, no adaptation, no interdiction.
The Overland campaign as a whole is nothing of the sort. Once forced to go overland, the goal was to 1.) bring the ANV into open combat, 2.) get the AoP between the ANV and Richmond, forcing either a battle or the loss of the capital (either of which wins the election and advances the end of the war), or 3.) trap the ANV in an unwinnable and inescapable siege, removing them as a field force and (albeit much more slowly) establishing the inevitable End Game for the war. All while employing major flanking movements, interdicting supply, adapting to a resilient and resourceful enemy on his home turf, and pressuring everywhere and destroying morale, through the extensions of the complete campaign. All while making certain that Lee could not regain the initiative, as he so regularly did against other less skillful opponents. The strategy and execution of this campaign is taught at West Point to this day. And not as a pejorative.
Again - misuse of the term.
Attrition itself - in one of the forms noted above - is always a goal in every military campaign. Always.
Enough of this already. I've seen it too many times before. On to more fruitful threads for me. Have fun, folks!