On Strategists and Strategies

My latest book will be published on 2 March by Oxford University Press in the UK under the title On Strategists and Strategies: Collected Essays 2014-2024. It is already published in the US. The book contains some autobiographical pieces, consideration of key strategic concepts, and assessments of some key figures in the field. Although I have not included my commentaries on ongoing events, there are pieces on the Iraq and the Russo-Ukraine Wars. Around half the pieces first appeared on this substack.

To whet your appetite you can read below the introduction to the collection. There’s a link for UK subscribers to get a signed copy at the end.

---

My interest in strategy developed with my interest in politics, which began when I was at school. I felt strongly about some things, especially racism, but I can’t claim to have been excited by schemes for good governance nor did I have strong opinions let alone much knowledge about most policy issues. But I was attracted by having a ‘side’ to champion and opponents to challenge and was intrigued from the start about how to persuade people who were at best indifferent or at worst hostile to join my side. I was a member of the small and centrist Liberal Party, home for those dissatisfied with both the Conservative and Labour Parties. With the Liberals indifference was more of a problem than outright hostility.

Then I got caught up with the idea that my generation, the ‘baby boomers’, was at the vanguard of a transformational movement. This was already evident in popular music (‘we’re the young generation and we’ve got something to say’) and fashion, not that I was in any sort of vanguard in that department. I looked at the civil rights and anti-war movements in the United States, as well as the student protests already sweeping British universities, and was sure that they pointed to a better future. I wanted to be part of it. Fortunately for me the Young Liberals, more so than the parent party, had picked up on this mood, so they still seemed a suitable home.

Perhaps politics might be my vocation. To find out more I applied to do social sciences at university rather than the natural sciences for which I had been preparing. Teachers at my school took this to be almost a declaration of a revolutionary intent. The social sciences were associated with leftism and rowdy demonstrations at the London School of Economics. LSE rejected me but Manchester took me and in September 1967 I arrived at the university for a course that offered an introduction to all elements of the social sciences – economics and anthropology as well as politics and sociology.

This suited me. I found the insight into the workings of society and government fascinating. I was able to align my studies with the big questions that were already bothering me. Not unusually for someone in their late teens who thinks the world ready for a great and wonderful transformation, I could not understand why ordinary people could not see their needs as clearly as I could. I read extensively about rebels and revolutionaries, about those who wanted a better society and were determined to improve the lot of their fellow humans, who fought against inequality and injustice. The stories were often inspiring and the heroes brave and admirable, but I could not help but notice that, with a few exceptions, the common theme was one of failure.