Mapping a grand strategy to strengthen and enhance America’s role in the world.
(Please see Part I of our three part series on American Grand Strategy: America's Dangerous Drift.)
Part Two: The United States desperately needs to formulate a grand strategy that reinforces the domestic foundations of American power while providing strategic guidance and direction to the nation’s actions in foreign policy. America must adapt with new ideas, tools and innovations if it is going to meet the opportunities and challenges of a rapidly changing world. To be successful, this strategy must embrace several overarching themes.
First, the United States must remain committed to playing a leadership role. While a deep and painful economic downturn followed by a slow recovery has dimmed the American public’s interest in global leadership, the costs of inaction are simply too great to contemplate. America has led in building the global order that we see today, but the image of a world without strong American engagement is equally dismal and potentially catastrophic.
Consider the chaos enveloping Libya, Egypt, and Syria. Or, consider Iran’s nuclear ambitions, North Korea’s ballistic missile tests, or the pressure on states in Eurasia as Russia and China become increasingly assertive. The list of foreign policy problems calling for American leadership is long and growing ever longer.
Americans, however, have good reason to be tired of carrying the mantle of global leadership. Peoples around the world continue to benefit from the public goods that America contributes in countless ways. Now, the nation has arrived at a crossroads where America must engage others in the task of leadership. From global terrorism to climate change, the world’s problems are too great for America to confront alone.
As rising nations gain regional and global influence, the international community must ask more from them. America must engage growing powers such as China to take on increased global responsibility. Worryingly, there is a long list of cases in which the United States has drifted without a grand strategy. But a grand strategy is precisely what America needs if its foreign policy is to provide clear direction and exercise leadership.
Second, American grand strategy must promote a positive, hopeful, and optimistic vision for the world that it seeks to build. It cannot rest simply on what the nation wants to prevent, such as proliferation or genocide or extremism, which invoke reaction and crisis management. Instead, Americans must focus on ‘achieving.’ For too long, U.S. policy has emphasized preventing or responding to such problems as extremism, proliferation, and roguish behavior. We must return to the time in America’s history when the nation sought to achieve peace and prosperity, democracy and free markets, shared responsibility among nations, and the will to tackle pressing problems.
As with earlier eras, the United States has not been and cannot credibly be a proponent of radical change or policies that seek to redefine the international order. Even in the face of a monolithic ideological adversary during the Cold War, Washington was the defender of the status quo values based on democracy, freedom and prosperity. In effect, grand strategy should call for more than solving problems; it must advance an agenda that builds peace and security.
This logic holds today. American grand strategy must promote a world in which states are permitted and encouraged to pursue peace and prosperity. As the hallmark of such an era, Washington’s grand strategy must be governed by both moderation and balance.
Photo Credit: Flickr (MVI)
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Mark Thomason
Our goal ought not to be running the world. Our goal ought to be a better America.
This can be achieved by a clear view of American interests, not as this article suggests seeking pure power devoted to running the world.
This is not selfish. What America ought to offer is a good example, once known as the light on the hill.
Don't try to force it on other people, just do it here the best way, and let it be seen. That would be far more successful than doing it poorly here and killing people who do not follow our instructions on our presumed example.
John Hildebrand
This is exactly my thought on the matter. If we run a great country, people will want to be like the US and invite us to assist them.
wayne kramer
since the 1500's the various nations of the planet have, for better of worse, taken turns leading, (or dominating) the others. Since WWII, this has been the role of the United States. We are the biggest gorilla in the valley so to speak. One of the duties of the biggest gorilla is to keep the peace among the other gorillas and to lead the gorilla tribe as a whole into the future. Likewise it is now the duty of the United States to lead the world's nations and to keep the peace and to help all nations go forward into the future with peace and prosperity. Right now, for better or worse, we are the only nation capable of maintaining a worldwide military presence. And our economy, while weak, is still the largest in the world. In my opinion, we are abdicating our leadereship responsibilities. The result is a power vacuum that other nations are filling. Many not our friends. Chaos will result if we continue to
believe we are "one of many" and refuse to fill our role as world leader. We are not "one of many", we are Americans!
PJ. Wilcox
Dr. Humbertus Hoffman of World Security Network spoke at USMA at West Point last week and made a profound statement that shook my thinking. He stated "The current foreign policy is predominately passive dominated by talking and not doing. We lose influence and do not support the forces of freedom with deeds but just empty words as in the Arabellion. His book on Dr. Fritz Kraemer describes how passion are necessary in foreign affairs similar to Steve Jobs describing the basis for his sucess founding Apple
George Bruno
A US foreign policy Grand Startegy is needed. I don't disagree with the articles main points, but there are several obstacles to be addressed along the way. Too often the US winds up lecturing others, "do as we say, instead of do as we do". Eg, the US is hardly in a postion to tell Greece and Italy to get its fiscal house in order while the US tries to deal with our sequester and debt ceiling; or tell Pakistan to control its borders against Taliban raids into Afghanistan when we have a much simpler lingering problem on our southern border; or tell Egypt that the Morsi government should be more inclusive when our own Congress is deadlocked; or tell Syria that it should respect human rights when we have an unchecked drone policy and waterboarding torture in the background with no one held accountable – should I go on. So our moral authority, perhaps our greatest strength, has been severely weakened in recent years. On major task toward a meaningful foreign policy is to put our own house in order, lead by example and acknowledge that a secure nation is more than just a strong military.
Tom F
@ W C Martel
I love your work, it's something I'd like to put on an ipod and listen to all day long walking a Appalachian or the Chemins de Saint-Jacques de Compostelle, but given most Americans are accustomed to 6 words messages all day long from the moment they wake up until they hit the sack, here's the reason why there's no bi-partisan consensus. America needs a 6 words or less message…can you imagine George W or Condi Rice sitting down for a 5 page briefing?
If I may be so bold as to put forward the first draft:
"The world needs China like it needs …"
Jean-Paul
I personally believe that America needs help, it needs help from its closest, most trustworthy allies, France and the UK. It is about time that France and the UK re-established their military bases throughout the world. France can start off by fully upgrading its polynesian naval base and stationing its new barracuda class nuclear subs to patrol the pacific. For the Indian ocean, we can use the UAE military base we established a few years ago.
America must share its burden only with its closest allies, America can play the role of the sheriff, while France and the UK can play the roles of deputy in policing this chaotic, hostile world.
Bankotsu
"America must share its burden only with its closest allies, America can play the role of the sheriff, while France and the UK can play the roles of deputy in policing this chaotic, hostile world…"
The more the west meddles in affairs of the world, the more chaos it will bring.
Bankotsu
The sort of thinking carried in the article leads to anti-americanism. It is extremely dangerous. I wonder whether the author is aware of this fact. People outside of U.S despise america due to the attitudes implied in the article.
Chris
@Bankotsu
Attitudes of global peace, security, and free enterprise? Or did you have something more specific in mind?
Bankotsu
The attitude that U.S must be the dominant power in the world forever is the most dangerous idea of our times. It will lead to war.
Because majority of states in the world all reject the U.S unipolar world.
9.dashed.brain
"…majority of states in the world all reject the U.S unipolar world."
Back your words with numbers
neutral
This article is a very long winded and polite way of saying that America must keep on dominating the world. Most of those "challenges" that this author raises are the result of American involvement, so what does he recommend, more involvement…