Abstract
Classical strategic studies literature posits that sound strategic practice ought to be guided by appropriate answers to two kinds of questions. The first kind of questions relate to an inquiry into the character of the war at hand. Strategists ought to ask about the respective political objectives of the belligerents, the means at their disposal etc. The second line of questions concerns the anticipation of the consequences of strategic performance. The “so what?” question, which directs attention to the consequentialist logic of strategy, is the prime example here. This article advocates for strategists to adopt the approach/avoid tension as the third crucial question in the strategist’s toolkit. The approach/avoid tension forms the most fundamental question of human psychology, especially its motivational system. Consequently, everything strategists do can be understood with reference to either approach or avoid motivations. Most importantly, the approach/avoid tension gives meaning to the first two questions. It only makes sense to ask about the character of the war at hand if one intends to approach or avoid it. Similarly, it only makes sense to ask about the consequences of one’s actions if one intends to take those actions or to avoid them. Contemporary psychological research further indicates that the approach/avoid tension can improve our understanding of how particular choices change strategist’s character in the long term. Drawing on the relevant literature from evolutionary psychology, the article discusses the many relevant implications of the approach/avoid tension for our understanding and navigation of strategic affairs.