Some Twitter friends asked for a strategy-related reading list. Here are some thoughts. I've focused on books that may be a bit off the beaten path. Clausewitz, Politics Among Nations, etc. should be on any good list!
Here goes...1/
Robert Komer.
Komer is an underappreciated strategist. Exceptionally lucid and penetrating. Very sensible. "Blowtorch" mind.
"Maritime Strategy or Coalition Defense" really helped my thinking in the Pentagon. Remains very relevant. 2/
His study on Vietnam "Bureaucracy Does Its Thing" is also masterful. I remember reading it when I returned from my stint as a civilian in Iraq and thinking: Wow. This nailed what happened. Eerie. 3/
His book "Nuclear Dilemmas in American Strategic Thought" is one of the most penetrating but underappreciated contributions laying out the key ways of thinking about nuclear strategy. 4/
He's famous as a SecDef. But his analytical writings were very penetrating and much more sound than, say, Kissinger's or many of the other poobahs. I think Schlesinger's record holds up best in terms of strategic vision during the Cold War. 5/
I particularly recommend his "Strategic Consequences of Nuclear Proliferation." A more sober and analytical approach to the problem than you'll find almost anywhere. 6/
Hans Morgenthau is of course famous for Politics Among Nations. Justly a classic. But I also found his Scientific Man and Power Politics especially penetrating. Well worth it. 7/
Huge fan. Underrated thinker even with a great deal of influence. His War and Change is rightly famous. But his work on the interplay between int'l politics and political economy are really valuable. 8/
Dale Copeland is also a fantastic thinker along these lines. Brings together power considerations with political economy in ways that are really helpful in understanding how international relations really work. 9/
A lot of the nuclear strategy canon is well known. This volume, Limited Strategic War, is an underappreciated part of it. Great piece in it for instance by Tom Schelling, a true giant. 10/
In my view, overrated as a statesman. But a phenomenal writer and thinker, albeit not always systematic or logical. Place to start is Diplomacy. It's his strong suit: History, character sketches, philosophical insights, the West. 11/
No list is complete without the peerless Bob Kaplan. There are many of Bob's works well worth consulting, but his book on the Balkans is one that had a huge impact at the time and an area he knows very well. 15/
U.S. shouldn't put its bets on China's demographics leading to near/medium-term decline.
I'm not an economist but was exchanging notes with someone who is a very good one. Some key points on this. 1/
A declining working-age population generally portends slower economic growth, as observed in Japan and Europe over the past decade.
But while demographic headwinds will eventually catch-up with China, internal migration should push the day of reckoning far into the future. 2/
Most of the growth in China’s effective labor force over the past 20 years has come from urbanization, with more than 270 million people leaving the countryside for employment opportunities in cities over this period. Even after this massive influx...3/
"...and Mr. Scholz has struggled to invest any extra in the depleted military."
It's insane that Washington is not heavily and insistently pressing Berlin to live up to its most basic NATO commitments. This policy is 180 from what US and NATO interests require. 2/
"The country has 180,000 active soldiers and just over 300 tanks, half of them not roadworthy, down from 500,000 troops and 5,000 tanks at the height of the Cold War." 3/
"A renewed and brutal Russian offensive is making incremental progress along the front, and Moscow may be poised to receive assistance from China..." 2/
Truly incredible: "But Scholz’s chief of staff, acknowledged this week that a budget crunch was likely to prevent Berlin from fulfilling last year’s promise of an increased defense spending.
“We must be honest about this. Ambition and reality are diverging.” 3/
"The fundamental job of any leader is to identify priorities — challenges and opportunities — communicate them, and then make the hard choices necessary to make progress against these priorities." 1/
"The most pressing threat the PLA poses is a vast missile program designed to hold the U.S. military at arm’s length, now outnumbering the U.S. in launch capacity and possessing technical advantage in the form of hypersonic missiles designed to outmaneuver defenses. " 2/
"But the U.S. does have a few people in leadership positions who correctly identify a rising China as not only a top rhetorical priority but one that merits difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions, [namely]: Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall and Gen. David Berger." 3/
I'm delighted to contribute to the important American Sea Power Project series in Proceedings @USNINews@USNIBooks. In it I lay out what I think a strategy of denial means for the sea services. 1/
BLUF: A strategy of denial requires a Navy and Marine Corps focused on denial defense along the first island chain in Asia. It does NOT mean "policing the sea lanes" or focusing on horizontal escalation. 2/
"The U.S. military’s role in a strategy of denial is central...Washington needs to ensure an effective denial defense along the first island chain, one that includes Taiwan within its perimeter." 3/
The factor of *time* must be front and center in thinking about Ukraine, Taiwan, Russia, and China. *Time* is of the essence.
There is a awakening among our allies. But it will take years come to fruition.
Yet China may have the ability to seize Taiwan in just a few years. 1/
It is great that we have awakened to our problems, for instance with the defense industrial base or European/Japanese defense spending. But these problems are far from solved. In fact in some cases, like the DIB, they are actually getting *worse.* 2/
At the same time Xi Jinping has made clear he wants the ability to seize Taiwan by 2027. And China is undertaking a historic military buildup to do it. No one knows if or when Beijing might move; I certainly don't. But very credible evidence indicates they may be able to soon. 3/