Luttwak's writing is often brilliant. Check out as many of his essays and summaries as you can. "Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire" drags and is difficult at times, but quite insightful.
One important point, re: this article --
> If you pursue military agrandizement so monomaniacally and consistently with realpolitick that you start to seriously threaten your neighbors and competitors then, if they are smart enough and act in time, you will provoke them into forming an alliance of resistance dedicated to doing whatever is necessary short of nuclear war, but including crushing your economy, to prevent you from getting big enough to dominate.
That was a followed by a criticism of the realism perspective to international relations, but there's variants of realism --
Which wouldn't advocate unlimited buildup of military resources. Compare offenseive realism, from Wikipedia --
"The emphasis offensive realism puts on hegemony as states’ end aim stands in sharp contrast to defensive realism’s belief that state survival can be guaranteed at some point well short of hegemony. In a defensive realist mindset, security increments by power accumulation end up experiencing diminishing marginal returns where costs eventually outweigh benefits."
So... that particular criticism of realism should perhaps be of offensive realism? As a sidenote, reading about realism on Wikipedia is certainly an interesting use of time.
One important point, re: this article --
> If you pursue military agrandizement so monomaniacally and consistently with realpolitick that you start to seriously threaten your neighbors and competitors then, if they are smart enough and act in time, you will provoke them into forming an alliance of resistance dedicated to doing whatever is necessary short of nuclear war, but including crushing your economy, to prevent you from getting big enough to dominate.
That was a followed by a criticism of the realism perspective to international relations, but there's variants of realism --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relation...
In particular, defensive realism seems the most sane and consistent with what actually happens in the world --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_realism
Which wouldn't advocate unlimited buildup of military resources. Compare offenseive realism, from Wikipedia --
"The emphasis offensive realism puts on hegemony as states’ end aim stands in sharp contrast to defensive realism’s belief that state survival can be guaranteed at some point well short of hegemony. In a defensive realist mindset, security increments by power accumulation end up experiencing diminishing marginal returns where costs eventually outweigh benefits."
So... that particular criticism of realism should perhaps be of offensive realism? As a sidenote, reading about realism on Wikipedia is certainly an interesting use of time.