Strategy isn’t chemistry in a lab. Leaders make choices in real time, with prior beliefs, knowledge and background, fears, and messy constraints. Hindsight proves nothing.
Eight principles for thinking straight about strategy:
1. Ex ante, not hindsight.
2. Ends–Ways–Means under uncertainty.
3. Hierarchy of ends (local → global).
4. Priors matter.
5. All sides have agency.
6. Least-bad options.
7. Synchronic + diachronic context.
8. Reasonable under the circumstances.
Strategic history’s value is not in proving what should have happened, but in understanding how leaders thought and why they chose as they did.
Sovereign restraint is the discipline of universality: sovereignty must remain thin, general, and neutral, leaving the space of particularity to parasovereign orders. Where sovereigns enforce religion, sex, ideology, or lifestyle, they collapse into factional capture. Where sovereignty restrains itself, it becomes durable, while parasovereignty supplies the diversity and richness of human life. Sovereignty without restraint is brittle. Sovereignty with restraint is stable.
"The aggressor is always peace-loving; he would prefer to take over our country unopposed."
Carl von Clausewitz, On War
War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing, huh!
Except when a country attacks. Are you just supposed to lie down and take it?
"Strong opinion, loosely held" is a stupid retort. If you wish to take a strong stance, at least have the courage to defend it with evidence and logic. That’s the essence of debate. On the other hand, retreating without a fight after someone challenges you is the epitome of cowardice. Don’t be a wuss.
