The U.S. faces tremendous challenges at home and abroad. Without a grand strategy, America’s perilous drift is likely to continue, and worsen.
In light of today's enormous domestic and international challenges, the United States today needs, more than ever, an effective grand strategy. Without one, the nation is in a dangerous state of drift.
In the aftermath of the recent U.S. presidential elections and in the midst of grueling battles over spending and deficit crises, American politics is highly polarized with the electorate and their policymakers deeply divided on domestic issues.
Turning to foreign policy, the picture is equally troubling. The United States struggles without a coherent grand strategy, while the American people, its friends and allies, and competitors wonder what principles guide Washington's foreign policy. What, they must ask, does the United States want to achieve in its foreign policy, and what leadership role does it seek to play in this rapidly evolving world order.
Worse, many fail to grasp that grand strategy involves far more than foreign and national security matters. Grand strategy is precisely about the broader, if often ignored, context of building and reinforcing the domestic political and economic foundations of American national power.
Knowing full well the serious challenges facing the United States, there is no more pressing problem for the nation than to develop a grand strategy that gives policymakers and the public a clear, positive, and bipartisan vision of the principles and ideas that guide U.S. foreign policy. This strategy must articulate a vision for the U.S. that is more than the sum of the challenges the nation faces.
To be effective, America’s new strategy must reinforce the domestic foundations of American power, reassure friends and allies that American foreign policy embraces a prudent balance between our principles and ideals, and avoid the twin perils of strategic overreach or neglect.
While the challenges are daunting, failure is not an option.
In a series of essays over the next several weeks, I will discuss the current void in American grand strategy at precisely the moment when the world faces increasingly dangerous sources of disorder. These essays will define the purposes American grand strategy should strive to achieve, as the nation deals with a new set of international challenges. Next, the series will outline the main principles that define a new grand strategy for the United States, and then discuss how to put those principles into practice. Lastly, this series proposes that despite great challenges, America nevertheless has the will and determination to move toward greater clarity of purpose in its foreign policy.
Why America Needs a Grand Strategy
Simply put, grand strategy is a broad set of principles, beliefs, or ideas that govern the decisions and actions of a nation’s policymakers with public support on foreign policy. The need for grand strategy is particularly acute in the case of the United States today. Its extraordinary power and influence make it more necessary than ever for American actions to be guided by a coherent grand strategy. The logic is inescapable: no nation can operate without a grand strategy. Without one, the nation faces a singular danger: when its policymakers are tempted to take actions without the guidance that a clear, purposeful strategic framework provides, we will see confusion, shifting policies, and “drift.”
The failure to define a grand strategy and the problems it causes are not new, but the challenge is more urgent than ever. With the end of the Cold War, scholars and policymakers failed to formulate a successor to the grand strategy of containment. Policymakers instead adopted policies that relied on the residue of containment or, more commonly, on piecemeal, ad-hoc solutions to problems. The danger is that adhering to the obsolete strategy of containment will contribute to foreign policy failures.
Photo Credit: US Government Work
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Bankotsu
"Without a grand strategy, America’s perilous drift is likely to continue, and worsen."
Despite a decade of costly and indecisive warfare and mounting fiscal pressures, the long-standing consensus among American policymakers about United States grand strategy has remained remarkably intact.
As the presidential campaign made clear, Republicans and Democrats may quibble over foreign policy at the margins, but they agree on the big picture: that the US should dominate the world militarily, economically, and politically, as it has since the final years of the Cold War, a strategy of liberal hegemony…
http://afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/new_military_course_for_america_shIrHedT4XdDTO7MuZ0j0I
This talk about U.S having no grand strategy is a false debate. It is a red herring. It is a distraction. It is nonsense.
U.S grand strategy is the same in 1950 as it is now in 2013. Global hegemony is the U.S grand strategy.
Beyond American Hegemony
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/beyond_american_hegemony_5381
Mark Kaskin
It would appear our national strategy is golf and vacations.
t_co
I'd much rather have that as a grand strategy than risking thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in war costs over misguided Eurasian adventures.
Bankotsu
"Just as there can be no substitute for having a coherent and purposeful grand strategy, the failure to define one produces an immensely dangerous drift in foreign policy."
Buit if U.S economy continues to decline for another 20 years, no among of "grand strategy" can save the U.S.
Bankotsu
U.S has already announced that they are pivoting to asia pacific to deal with rise of China. So where is the drift? There is no drift. U.S' main target region is asia pacific.
"Without a grand strategy, America’s perilous drift is likely to continue, and worsen."
The idea that U.S has no grand strategy is total nonsense. But I'll humour with you.
Here's a recent report on U.S military grand strategy, it gives pretty good and realistic recommendations:
A New US Defense Strategy For A New Era: Military Superiority, Agility, And Efficiency
http://www.stimson.org/books-reports/a-new-us-defense-strategy-for-a-new-era-military-superiority-agility-and-efficiency/
The report argues that U.S should make a deal with Russia and cut more nuclear weapons, Obama is doing that now, seems like this report has some influence on the Obama second term.
Bankotsu
"So perhaps the main goal of any grand strategy today, would be to protect America from China? "
I talk there was already the pivot to asia pacific strategy? How come the U.S doesn't have a grand strategy? U.S. DOES HAVE A GRAND STRATEGY.
It is incorrect and completely wrong to say that U.S has no grand strategy.
Leonard R.
Odd article, it goes on & on for five pages about America's need for a grand strategy. But the author never recommends what he thinks the grand strategy should be or why it must be 'grand'. He tells us what it should take into consideration, but not what conclusions it should be based on.
How about this for a grand strategy – 'to protect America from is enemies'. How does that sound? That strategic objective would encompass America's economic enemies, its military enemies and its enemies in cyber-space. Of course, the list of enemies changes over time. But right now, only one nation qualifies in all three categories. That of course, is the PRC. So perhaps the main goal of any grand strategy today, would be to protect America from China?
angelus512
Good point. In the cold war it was containment. The US didn't want to duke it out and was confident that their system was superior and things would pan out that way and all that needed to happen was to keep the USSR contained and things would sort itself out.
Why are they continuing to pussy foot about regards China? Either China is a friend and for whatever reason the US wants China as a big country again and if so why?
Or China is behaving (all of us here seem to think so) in a manner thats harmful to the internaitonal community. Therefore China needs to be put flat on its #$@.
If the later is true just come out and do something about it.
Right now all it seems is a reactive strategy thats clinging to the old containment strategies but without any of its vigour. Reagan's Evil Empire speech said clear and loud what they and the western world thought of the USSR.
Waiting to see somebody either shake China's hand and explain why being besties is a good idea or slap them and also explain why.
So far its neither.
angelus512
Furthermore China has so far displayed nothing other than the aggressive and single minded accumulation of wealth and cares not about anything else. To add to the danger of that their population doesn't seem to care about anything else either.
That kind of receipe spells trouble, exploitation and very very bad mojo. One of the main reasons the British Empire fell apart was because the people in England didn't have the stomach for it anymore and they felt it was "wrong" or unkind etc to their various colonies.
If China were in the same position they wouldn't care at all how many people it hurt or abused so long as there was some $$ to be made.
Thats the real danger of CHina that they only care about wealth and money and nothing else matters to their people or the country.
That can and has and will lead to terrible evils being done to others in the name of $$.
China's history is littered with the obsessive accumulation of wealth to the exclusion of anything else.
A trully shallow shallow country.
Bankotsu
"China's history is littered with the obsessive accumulation of wealth to the exclusion of anything else."
Are you confusing U.S with China again?
John China
@Leonard R, angleus512,
Why do you need to protect America from China? China is USA’s friend because she does the following:
1. China subsidizes USA’s living standard by supplying them goods they cannot afford to buy if the goods came from Japan, UK, France, Australia, etc.
2. China finances US government’s operations, bill payments for civil servants, hospitals, schools, etc. in the term of trillion of dollars.
3. China helps US dominate its lackeys with morality, and make its lackeys treat USA’s abuses as a gift to them.
4. China helps US to put its teen angst in check, so it is not going to wreak havoc everywhere like having an intermittent explosive order.
…
Those so called US’ friends like Japan, the Philippines, UK, France, etc. are not USA’s friends, they are bad influences, they abuse USA’s good nature and fool USA into thuggish bully behaviour and make the USA the most hated nation in the world. USA must clear her head to realize who her friend is and who her enemy is; hint, Japan is one of the worst disguised enemies.
Jean-Paul
@ John Chan
I honestly have to say you have got it totally wrong my poor commie friend. I actually think I know what the underlying cause of your hatred towards the great western nations. You are simply jealous and resentful of the fact that you are not apart of the vaunted and admired G7 group of nations. Every time you go on a rant it will always be about at least one of those 7 nations. Please just accept the fact that China is way too anti-social and awkward to ever be apart of this elite club and maybe all that anger that you carry can finally be cleansed from your body.
Anyways here are the reasons why China is a bad friend of the USA:
1. It is a currency manipulator and is pegging to the US dollar at an unfair advantage, giving them an edge in exports.
2. It steals good manufacturing jobs from the hard working American people, if America could get even half those jobs back their economy could restart itself and bring unemployment back to its 2005-2006 levels.
3. It dumps cheap, government subsidized goods into US and other western markets, particularily with steel products.
4. It is bullying one of the most respected and peaceful nations of the modern period (1946-2013) Japan. China has been way more aggressive and violent during the modern period. They attacked Vietnam and raped the villages, they attacked India in cold blood, they supported a genocidal maniac in Cambodia, and they are comitting cultural genocide against those poor monks.
Overall, it seems like you are a troll and have no idea what you are talking about. France has been the USA's friend since its inception. We have guided the USA and helped them out in times of need, and they, in return, helped save us in WW1 and WW2. Please pick up a history book before posting.
John Chan
@Jean-Paul,
Although French was successful in sowing the discord between the British and their colonist Americans, and made them kill each other for years, but in the end blood is thicker than water, American dumps the French, and embraces the British as their closest cousin.
French’s hard effort to appease the American is not going to make a dent on the feeling of “you are not one of us” between the American and the British.
Jean-Paul
@ John Chan
Didn't you just say that the UK was not one of the USA's friends? How can the UK be the closest cousin of the USA but not a true friend? It seems your usual hypocrisy is showing again.
At least keep your story straight when debating, or else you will not be taken seriously here. France, Japan, UK and even the Philippines are the best influences for the USA, we have been helping them for centuries to become a moral world leader.
John Chan
@Jean-Paul,
“French does not practice what they preach” is hypocrisy; by saying one thing first and another thing next is called inconsistency; but putting words in other’s mouth is called slandering or defaming that is what you have been doing consistently on this site.
Jean-Paul
@ John Chan
Well at least you are admitting that you are inconsistent, now if you could admit that you are a hypocrite, slanderer and propaganda agent, then you might finally start to gain some credibility once again.
gallan
The U.S defending itself from it's enemies is not a grand enough strategy. In the big scheme of things China is an annoying fly. It's cyber attacks are insulting but understandeable, and it hasn't made any serious economic or military attacks.
U.S grand strategy should be to defend it's TRUE allies. That means protecting Europe and Phillipines from islamization, and japan, phillipines, australia, new zealand and singapore from Chinese pressure. The south east asia sea dispute should be taken seriously as it violates the phillipines sovereignty, a long time military and cultural ally of the u.s.
Tom F
@Leonard R "to protect America from is enemies'. .. That of course, is the PRC"
Let's not get so hasty and start name calling (for now), and let's just pick one company that symbolises American (world) success and innovation in the third millenium, it's Google.
How is Google doing in the PRC? Let's just start with that….American Congress – are you willing to be bipartisan yet?
vic
American is not drifting; it is witnessing the "rise of others". The crisis is in the American mindset, simply because it could no longer call all the shots. The world is going to normalcy, whereby power is more diffused and "the others" will continue to rise economically and politically. America will simply become part of the world .
Oro Invictus
I think what is needed first, prior to actually formulating a “grand strategy”, is to redefine what the end goal of a nation should look like. While, inherently, nations are essentially macroscopic organizations of man’s competitive nature coalescing into a generalized goal designed to refocus internecine aggression, this does not mean that the standard model of nations, to “win at any cost” is the only or best option. Even if we are unable to overcome the irrational concepts of nationalities and inbred socio-culturalism, the course of nations need not be zero-sum struggle against one another.
Consider the course of history as a whole: It follows an almost immutable pattern of complete chaos giving way to power concentrations in the forms of nations and blocs which in turn give way to a more disseminated power structure, which then leads to schism and finally a return to chaos. While the specifics of why this occurs are far more than I alone could hope to discern, the underlying mechanism is deceptively simple.
1) In periods of chaos (or poverty, if you prefer), societies begin to coalesce in an attempt to raise oneself and, in turn, the group as a whole, as a function of basic survival. Essentially, they respond to the uniform emptiness of these “dark ages” by attempting to polarize power structures and create something greater.
2) With these polarized power structures present, other societies begin to take root in this more stable landscape and form along similar lines, growing in such a manner they begin to interlink with other societies, be they great powers or small ones.
3) As these interconnections deepen and societies homogenize (or perhaps a better term would be integrate), the distribution of power begins to redistribute itself, depolarizing the overall power structure. A dynamic equilibrium begins to emerge, resulting in optimal productivity and prosperity.
4) Unfortunately, at this point, the same mechanisms which allowed for societies to begin establishing themselves begin working counter to the greater good. The same impetus and systems which resulted in the initial polarization of societies re-establish themselves in response to this dynamic equilibrium, as the “social machinery” which forms the foundation of these societies power structures respond to this equilibrium in the same manner they did the “emptiness”. The society falsely views itself as threatened and responds by attempting to aggressively aggregate power at the expense of others.
5) As power distribution begins to polarize itself again, it no longer can grow organically; essentially, the niches of societies have been filled and the manner in new niches can be created (by distributing power) has been rendered nugatory. As such, the only way to further gain power is to take it away from others, namely those other societies which have most polarized themselves from others. While some societies may briefly be able to achieve hegemony, eventually the result is ultimately the same: The overall system tears itself apart and effectively returns itself to the “dark ages” state.
Given this underlying cycle and the mechanisms behind it, the solution to ending it is similarly simple (in function, if not in form): It is effectively to do what all nations claim is their goal, to seek an equal global commons in which no society can be said to wield more power than any other. If the US, as the current greatest aggregator of power, were to begin implementing systems by which to disseminate it to other nations it would guarantee its and others prosperity.
Already, even without such dissemination of power, as the US has not begun in earnest to begin aggressively (re)building its power (as it does not view itself truly threatened), we already see the self-corrective mechanisms of the overall system come into play. Nations like Russia and the PRC, which are aggressively attempting to aggregate power, are already repeating all the same mistakes and showing the same conditions as numerous other failed nations in the past. If the US simply abandons the idea of being “The World’s Leader”, nations like the PRC and Russia will inevitably fail to destabilize the system and be pulled back into said equilibrium (albeit, how painful said process will be for said nations is directly dependent on how vigorously they try to “resist the tide” as it were). However, if the US does begin to act in a similar manner as the PRC or Russia, it may very well be enough to destabilize the system and restart the polarization process. While, given the US’ somewhat historically unique regenerative and competitive capabilities, it would likely be able to overcome the PRC and Russia in such a battle of global influence (as long as nothing like a nuclear war or some other similarly devastating event breaks out), it will leave the world in an unstable state and, even if the global commons does not fall apart then, make it that much more difficult to establish a lasting global equilibrium and that much more likely another “dark age” will begin.
angelus512
The US needs to pursue more aggressively its original "humanist" values IMHO. They established the UN and had a quite naive at the time view that all the world could be happy and ruled by law and public pressure.
They've largely abandoned that goal since the end of the Cold War. They should actively regenerate that idea. The best way forward for all of us and the US included is to create a stronger influence and force of the UN in the world today. Far far stronger than it now currently is.
The world needs to be pushed towards its own European Union version of thigns except on a global scale and with the US as designated "leader" or wise old man.
In this way the US will retain a leadership position, likely remain the largest militarily but in a collective security environment.
If its 1 v 1 v 1 etc type quarrels that the US hopes to win over the long term its simply going to be outweighed by sheer population size compared to China.
However the US is the only one that can create an international system/house everybody else wants to live in and in this way China can either choose to be a HAPPY part of that system or left in the dustbin of history.
Greg
coordination between Russia and China? while there is a growing shift in power away from democratic western europe towards Russia and China, there is little but suspicion between Russia and China. bring me a shred of evidence that they are cooperating, and I'll shift my views. Competing for influence with the same countries doesn't count.
talking points
Dont force it. Sometimes you need to drift for a while before you find a grand strategy. If you forc e it, you will get a wrong strategy and get killed