For readers with seriously little to do, I’ve just been lucky enough to have an article published by Britain’s Royal United Services Institution in its Journal.
The article is called ‘Why Britain doesn’t do Grand Strategy’, not literally meant, but it runs through seven major reasons why statecraft and the art of strategy has suffered lately in the UK, from the basic problem that we hardly study it, to the more complex problem that ‘strategic’ documents have become a declaratory genre for stating high-minded intentions, rather than doing serious ends/means thinking.
Amongst other things, it argues for the importance of historical context in the coming and going of strategic thought. Serious textual thought about statecraft historically emerged in certain conditions that don’t exist right now, where external conditions focused the mind and where certain relationships came into being between rulers, institutions, strategic minds and the military.
Here’s a link. Its a subscription journal, but money well spent.