Grand Strategy
Book Recommendations
So in
response to a few requests from YouTube commenters, here’s a simple video recommending
some books on Grand Strategy. Obviously these reflect my own opinions and
biases; so if you want to, please add your own recommendations in the comments,
or else treat the video like the belated April Fool’s joke that you think it
is.
A Good Grand Strategy Book
In my
opinion, a good book on Grand Strategy has the following elements:
1. Actually about Grand Strategy. Pretty
obvious – but looks can be deceiving. If Grand Strategy is about using
state-level resources to achieve state-level goals; then a grand strategy book needs
to focus on that relationship between means and ends, whether by analyzing how
states can fully exploit their resources, or what policies lead to what
outcomes, and so on.
This is my
complaint about John Lewis Gaddis’ book On
Grand Strategy, which focuses on the idea of ‘means and ends’ to such an
extent that it’s really a book about decision-making. Which is fair enough, given
the Yale Professor’s role in teaching the US elite, but that’s not what I
bought the book for.
2. Careful about simplifying history. Writing
history implies simplification, and even more so when you’re trying to prove
some strategic argument. But a good book takes care not to simplify so much as
to lose persuasiveness.
You can lose
persuasiveness by overlooking too many facts, as seen in Graham Allison’s Destined for War. As part of his analysis
on Thucydides’ Trap, Allison argues that 15th Century Spain
peacefully displaced Portugal, using the division of America at Tordesillas as
proof. But that overlooks the War of the Castilian Succession between them
during that period, and the various colonial skirmishes and threats that
continued afterwards.
Simplification
also shouldn’t result in something untrue. Edward Luttwak, in The Rise of China vs the Logic of Strategy,
argues that classical Chinese strategy was made in a context of all states
sharing the same culture, hence why it stresses pragmatism, flexibility and
intrigue. But during the time of Sun Tzu, not only were the various states
arguably not of the same culture, they
also had extensive interactions with non-Han both during the period and for
centuries afterwards.
In general,
the more historical or strategic ground a book has to cover, the more it has to
simplify, and the greater the potential for trouble. Part of avoiding the simplification
problem, therefore, is to limit the scope of the book.
3. Limits historical details. The other
side of the coin is too much detail, which is a problem of readability. For
example, Michael Barnhart’s Japan
Prepares for Total War is an incredibly informative but unfortunately dense
book, full of coal and molybdenum allocations, meetings between ever-shifting
Japanese factions and on top of that, the view from the US, which makes it a
pretty dense read.
On the other
hand, too much detail can come in the form of inserting lower-level analysis in
a strategic-level text. Andrew Field’s Royal
Navy Strategy in the Far East 1919-1939 expertly shows the naval dilemmas
faced by interwar Britain, but the argument is broken up and diluted because of
the inclusion of British fleet tactics and discussions of what ship goes to
what port.
Limiting
detail is a real problem for 20th Century grand strategy because of
the sheer volume of information available, but the previous rules of
simplification apply: not too much, and not in a way that is completely
unjustified by the facts.
Recommendations
There are
two main types of grand strategy book. The first is what I call structural
analysis, which seeks to lay down general rules for grand strategy. Within it,
there is:
- Geopolitical analysis, analyzing
what resources or terrain incentivize what outcomes;
- and Strategic analysis, analyzing
what state actions produce what outcomes.
The second
main type is historical analysis, which instead of general rules, is focused on
actual history and leaves the job of figuring out rules to the reader. Within
it are books dealing with either a specific or a broader historical scope.
Before we
begin, I have to declare my biases here: as a person who studied politics and
international relations in the UK, I prefer the ‘British’ school of analysis,
which is more word-based and generalist, compared with the US emphasis on
statistics and specialization.
An example
of US-style strategic analysis is Alastair Iain Johnston’s Cultural Realism, which statistically analyzes Chinese texts and
Ming Dynasty policy to argue against the idea that China’s strategy is more
peace-loving than others. It’s a fairly dense read.
Structural Analysis
Geopolitics
For me, the
first chapter of Jos Gommans’ Mughal
Warfare contains a superb geopolitical analysis of early modern India, and
that’s why his was the subject of my first video. It examines not just the
impact of terrain and trade, but also the climate and biosphere on the Mughal
Empire’s political expansion. It’s not everyday that you’ll see somebody talk
about the strategic impact of growing rice instead of wheat!
In a sense,
the book is a more comprehensive version of the ‘Geographic Challenge’ series
that Stratfor produces both on YouTube and in print. A Wess Mitchell’s overview
of Austrian geopolitics in The Grand
Strategy of the Habsburg Empire is also a similarly good read.
Strategic
For all his
historical simplifications, Edward Luttwak’s non-historical strategic analysis
is fairly readable. Strategy does a
good job of introducing the ideas of the ‘dynamic paradox’ and ‘culminating
point’ in strategy, and Coup d’Etat provides
well-rounded analysis based on a theoretical case study. Turbo Capitalism has 2 chapters on geoeconomics that form a
state-interventionist counter to Blackwill and Harris’ War by Other Means. Note that Luttwak’s books date from the 1980s,
however.
For strategic
analysis based on historical research, I recommend Rebecca Berens Matzke’s book
Deterrence Through Strength, which by
analyzing 3 British diplomatic crises in the 1840s and 50s, applies and refines
the theory of ‘deterrence’ to 19th-Century seapower, in particular the
concepts of ‘persuasion’ and ‘signaling’. It’s a good way of thinking about the
naval theories of Mahan and Corbett in practice, especially in a peacetime
context.
Historical Analysis
Specific Campaigns
For
historical analysis on specific campaigns, I find Donald Stoker’s The Grand Design: Strategy and the US Civil
War and Andrew Lambert’s The Crimean
War to be readable yet comprehensive texts. Covering events from the
operational level upwards, they demonstrate that strategy is not just a matter
of having the right plan, but also being able to coordinate said plan between
different actors.
As an
additional bonus, YouTube has videos of both authors lecturing on their
respective subjects, though Andrew Lambert’s is more operationally and
tactically-focused.
Extended Period/Scope
For
historical analysis that focuses on one country over an extended period, Jeremy
Black’s From Louis XIV to Napoleon analyzes
France’s grand strategy throughout the 18th Century, showing how
both its long-term financial troubles and short-term political choices caused
it to lose out to Britain.
For analysis
that focuses on a set of countries within a specific period, Joe Maiolo’s Cry Havoc analyzes the pre-WWII economic
and production strategies of the major Allied and Axis powers.
Lastly, for
macro-historical analysis I would recommend Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, though I would note that the
scope of that book is so broad that the only strategic theme clearly present is
the long-term importance of economic and productive power, which is true enough
but leaves out the impact of short-term strategy.
Conclusion
Obviously
this list reflects my own reading, tastes and knowledge background; so again,
feel free to add your own opinions in the comments. For now, thank you for
watching, I’m Strategy Stuff, please like and subscribe, and take care!
No comments:
Post a Comment