Reflections and Sugested Reading I: Strategic Theory
Bibliography: Strategic Theory
How the Weak Win Wars, Ivan Arreguin-Toft
A modern work on why weaker actors may win wars, published in the mid-2000s. Refreshingly competent on the subject, although the author does unfortunately use a direct/indirect approach dichotomy to strategy, which I feel is, although the most prevalent, also the weakest. It does, however, emphasize that the character of each actor’s strategy is of central importance to the character of the end result, which I can only applaud.
Introduction to Strategy, Andre Beaufre
One of the few significant French works on strategy to survive the Cold War, in many ways it is a typically French work, particularly in its embrace of the totality of strategy. Beaufre argues a concept of total strategy, which is roughly equivalent to grand strategy or national security strategy, which thus takes all tools of power into account. As a method of illustration, Beaufre’s concept of indirect approach is effectively slow and cautious diplomacy, rather than Liddell Hart’s ambiguous concept.
Strategy and Ethnocentrism, Ken Booth
A Cold War British take on strategic culture, and one of the very first treatises on strategic culture full stop, its importance as a pathfinding work is clear. It is also lucid on the contemporary differences in thought processes of Western and Soviet strategic concepts. It clearly shows that the potential differences between strategic cultures can be vast enough that not only do most strategists not even try, but they can’t even conceive of the idea that there actually are different cultures.
Small Wars, C.E. Callwell
This hefty tome is one of the late Victorian and early Edwardian classics on the types of colonial conflict that largely predated what today is known as insurgency. The latter half of the book is chockfull of tactical advice which, while interesting, isn’t worth particularly much. The first half deals with strategy, however, and touches on topics such as the varying cultures and the effects of geography and terrain upon them, different strategic aims within colonial wars and so on. Some have called it a somewhat racist book—in keeping with the spirit of the times during which it was written—but others would argue that it merely does not lose sight of the fact of violence in war.
On War, Carl von Clausewitz (Peter Paret & Michael Howard)
The single most important book on war, to the extent that even those few (fools) who disagree with Clausewitz on his major points cannot ignore him. The Peter Paret and Michael Howard translation is the best translation currently available, although it is steeped in the academic concepts and formulations of the mid-Cold War. Yet until a new and better translation is available, it remains the best.
Some Principles of Maritime Strategy, Julian S. Corbett
The classic British work on seapower, written at the height of empire, it reflects the spirit of its times. Phrases such as that describing the quest for concentration and decisive naval battle as a shibboleth adorn this work, which emphasizes the ability of seapower to localize and otherwise limit conflict, as well as a realistic appreciation of the limits of its utility.
Pure Strategy, Everett C. Dolman
Another modern book, published in the past few years, it is perhaps one of a meager handful of books that builds upon the thought that has come before and offers ideas that are truly new and interesting. Quite a thought provoking book, although it sometimes gives the feel of being two separate monographs pasted together into one.
The Command of the Air, Giulio Douhet
This remains the most important book on airpower, due as much to historical accident and the (clumsy) force with which Douhet argued his ideas (clumsy, because its readability has been compared unfavorably with that of Mein Kampf). Almost the basic concepts of airpower theory are touched upon here. Those that are not are those which are rarely seen as a part of airpower theory, such as air transport, air supply, and the like, which are simply not as glamorous.
The Strategy Bridge¸ Colin S. Gray
I admit to not actually reading this one yet. That’s partially because it was published in the past couple months, that I bought it in the past couple weeks and have not had time to read. However, Colin Gray is one of the greatest contemporary writers on strategy and so it should be more than well worth the cost of purchase.
Every War Must End, Fred Charles Iklé
Although a tiny little Cold War-era book, it gives a good impression that, although every war must indeed end, the process of ending is inevitably very messy and rather varied between instances. An important book for this reason alone, as most people tend to underrate the difficulties of war termination.
The Art of War, Baron de Jomini
The work of Clausewitz’s rival, and usually slagged off when compared to On War, this book actually has some interesting discussion that On War lacks. Among other things, it discusses different types of wars, the existence of which Clausewitz refers to but never delves in to. Also, it is very important for historical value, due to the great influence it had during the 1800s.
Strategy, Basil Liddell-Hart
The quintessential work of British strategic theory, written by the quintessential British strategic theorist. At once a sweep of history and a near polemic arguing Liddell Hart’s indirect approach, it contains some good ideas, a lot of bad history and so forth. The general thrust of Liddell Hart’s argument is utterly right, but he begins to fall down a bit when arguing how to achieve the specified goals.
Strategy, Edward N. Luttwak
This book has two major ideas contained within. First, that war is divisible into levels (strategic, operational, etc). Second, that war is governed by a paradoxical nature. Both ideas are stretched rather too far (it is impossible to divide war into levels, although as an aid to discussion it can be helpful, but this subtly has been lost since the idea was first put forward) (also, much of the paradoxical logic identified is merely ironic). However, it remains a thought provoking book.
Victory in War, William C. Martel
This is a very interesting discussion on what victory actually is, and the author helpfully offers a number of measures by which any success can and perhaps should be measured. It sets itself a relatively modest goal, “pretheory,” and while it probably offers a bit more than that, its ideas must still be developed further.
How Wars End, Dan Reiter
In some ways, this book is a good companion to the immediately above. Whereas the above discusses concepts of success, this work discusses certain processes by which war termination can be achieved, albeit within an unabashedly rationalist framework. Despite this particular leaning, it remains quite a thought provoking work on the topic.
Arms and Influence, Thomas C. Schelling
One of the most hardheaded books on nuclear strategy to emerge from the Cold War, it can easily infuriate those who do not share its basic assumptions. It will also exasperate those who are too easily riled up by the assumption of a strategic man—akin to the economic man—but its explicit emphasis on effect makes it well worth reading, as ultimately strategy is about effect.
Military Strategy, J.C. Wylie
Possibly the second best book on strategy, it is full of many interesting ideas, one of my favorite being a unique dichotomy of strategy—sequential and cumulative, which I think can be tweaked into being a very insightful bit of work. It has been hailed as possibly the only book after On War to provide some original theory, although now it may possible share that title with Pure Strategy (albeit of the two it remains in first place).