Grand Strategies and Less-than-Grand Strategies: A Twentieth-Century Critique

Abstract

Abstract One of the characteristics of a great (as opposed to a merely competent) scholar is an ability to transcend the normal limitations of a discipline, to produce writings which attract the attention both of academics in other fields and of non-academics, and thus to address some of the larger issues of society, culture, and politics. For obvious reasons, each discipline’s ‘pool’ of scholars who can play that transcending role is very limited, and often embarrassingly thin, so that it has always been a great comfort to historians of international and strategic affairs to be able to advance the name of Michael Howard as at least one among us who fits into that special category. While possessed of all of the credentials of a classically trained military historian, he has in addition repeatedly addressed contemporary issues such as deterrence and military ethics, bringing to the attention of policy-makers and their publics the importance of having historical perspective and balance in grappling with the affairs of state. From arms control to civil–military relations, Michael Howard has added mightily to the public debates which are the hallmark of all democratic societies seeking to order their policy priorities.