choices are costly, so the absolute costs are no criticism, only the relative costs, requiring a counterfactual analysis of the alternatives. The chapters offer competing definitions of grand strategy. Here is mine: the grandness of the strategy comes not from the scale of the project, the greatness of purpose or a country’s size, but from the multiplicity of instruments integrated to achieve intended goals. In short, grand strategy entails the integration of multiple of instruments of national power to achieve overarching goals in both peace and war. Concretely, Cabinet portfolios represent the instruments of national power and Cabinets meet to coordinate grand strategy. However daunting the task and flawed the process, countries without institutionalized and professionalized Cabinets tend to fare worse. Rethinking American Grand Strategy was thought provoking and enjoyable to read, a volume that invites further research. It focuses on team America. However, to evaluate the effectiveness of grand strategy, one must cross to the non-U.S. side of the tennis court net to give equal analytical time to the opposing team. Life is an ongoing interaction with others. To evaluate the success or failure of the interaction requires a deep understanding of others and analysis of what one does, how others respond, how one reacts and whether anyone achieves what they want at an acceptable cost. Sports enthusiasts routinely study all teams and rehash the interaction, play by play. Why should the study of international relations, let alone war, the most consequential of all human interactions, demand less than what Americans devote to sports? A failure to consider the priorities and strategies of others is an origin of the hubris that often gets Americans into trouble. Future research on grand strategy should focus on the interaction because, as we say at the U.S. Naval War College, ‘the enemy is not a potted plant’ and, indeed, ‘gets a vote’.

中文翻译：

---

书评：祖鲁布尔战争，1837-40 年，Michał Leśniewski

选择是昂贵的，所以绝对成本没有批评，只有相对成本，需要对备选方案进行反事实分析。这些章节提供了大战略的相互竞争的定义。这是我的观点：战略的宏大并非来自项目的规模、目的的伟大或国家的规模，而是来自为实现预期目标而集成的多种工具。简而言之，大战略需要整合多种国家力量工具，以实现和平与战争的总体目标。具体而言，内阁组合代表国家权力的工具，内阁开会协调大战略。无论任务多么艰巨，过程多么有缺陷，没有制度化和专业化内阁的国家往往情况更糟。《重新思考美国大战略》发人深省，读起来很愉快，值得进一步研究。它专注于美国队。然而，要评估大战略的有效性，必须越过网球场的非美国一侧，给对方球队同等的分析时间。生活是与他人的持续互动。要评估交互的成功或失败，需要深入了解他人并分析自己的行为、他人的反应、自己的反应以及是否有人以可接受的成本实现了他们想要的。体育爱好者会定期研究所有球队并重新进行互动，逐场比赛。为什么要研究国际关系，更不用说战争，所有人类互动中最重要的，需求少于美国人对体育的投入？不考虑他人的优先事项和策略是经常让美国人陷入困境的狂妄自大的根源。未来对大战略的研究应该集中在相互作用上，因为正如我们在美国海军战争学院所说的那样，“敌人不是盆栽植物”，而且确实“得到了投票”。