America’s New Grand Strategy

The Statesman ^ | 3/04 | Oliver DeMille

[expatpat]

Interesting, but not too constructive.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
7	Montana	815.00	4	203.75	43	18.95

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[GOP_1900AD]

I am working on it. Some things to be considered include identifying the best practices from several previous periods (including earlier ones in Europe, prior to the 1500s). This is, on the face of it, and, using some terminology currently in vogue, a DMAIC Six Sigma Project. But that vastly underplays what is involved, and what is at stake. The author sort of hinted at parts of the likely new design, in his alternative number 2. War may be a necessity to get through the knot hole, hundred of millions may die. One analysis I've done suggests that such a war is inevitable. Therefore, in that case, our grand strategy really would need to be how best to anticipate and manage through it, such that we emerge in a desireable position and able to implement our next grand strategy.

[GOP_1900AD]

Typo: hundred > hundreds.

[CatoRenasci]

More alarmist than insightful, I'd say. Also pretty superficial on the development and formation of grand strategy.

[dg62]

Interesting article and true enough I'm sure. When I look up the ladder at work, I see that the top levels don't give the slightest thought about where we'll be in 10 years. They think about the next 1--3 years, and only about how to get to the payout. I think very few of them have any strategy, or think of any direction they want things to go when they leave. I would guess it's pretty much the same in most of national leadership.

[swarthyguy]

One strategy that was pondered but never followed by the British Raj was to federalize the empire, turning it into an economic bloc, incorporating both the Dominions and India and African colonies, creating a worldwide integrated trading, military and power structure giving virtual independence politically to the discrete parts and tying it together economically.

For a variety of reasons, some racial, others entrenched and traditional, it was never followed or implemented.

Instead a continuation of 19th century statesmanship, colonial exploitation, GreatPowerRealPolitik, Eurocentric thinking continued eventually leading to the evisceration of the Empire precipitated by the GreatWar.

Any implication for America today is strictly coincidental and not to be taken seriously. There.

[dg62]

Ousting all dictators in the world would fit well with the goal of controlling all WMD. This by itself would be titanic undertaking on a scale to match the three prior stategy swithces.

[DoctorMichael]

Interesting read. He calls for Kuhn-like paradigm shift.

[Southack]

"the amazing thing is that none of them, and nothing else to date, proposes a new grand strategy for the United States"

Methinks that the author of this article doesn't get out much (and apparently doesn't read too much, either)...

President Bush's Grand Strategy

[expatpat]

I was expecting to read about a new Grand Strategy, but was sadly disappointed. (Is anyone ever 'happily disappointed'?)

[Wolfhound777]

In short, statesmen are needed in the next two decades to formulate and implement a grand strategy which requires virtue, wisdom, diplomacy and courage at Churchillesque, Ghandi-like and Jeffersonian proportions.

And herin lies the problem. 95% of our Representatives and Senators are incompetent, have no vision, have no courage, and are too busy finding ways around that pesky United States Constitution getting in the way of their power grabs for personal gain. Sadly, the majority are not up to the task of any "grand strategy".

[kitkat]

***More alarmist than insightful, I'd say. Also pretty superficial on the development and formation of grand strategy.***

Absolutely! And just how does this textbook warrior think the world would react if President Bush announced that he's going to get rid of all dictators in the world by 2025? Heck, he couldn't even get the UN to go along with just one country.

Easy for this guy to talk, huh? Sounds like the opinion of a college sophomore sitting around solving the world's problems with a bunch of Internationalsim II students.

[GOP_1900AD]

This continues to fascinate me. I also like to look even further back at some of the arrangements which there were in Europe 400 - 1300 AD. Although most history books dwell on feudalism, such a view belies that fact that a number of well formed quasi empire states existed during that period. The key is having a shared overall geostrategic vision and therefore being able to focus on execution of it without wasting time on internal squabbles. Given today's structures, the most obvious arrangement to me takes in the swath of former UK holdings in the Americas, the Pacific Ocean and Asia, sans most of the rabidly Islamist nations, and adds in a small number of selected allies such as Japan, Taiwan, and perhaps Greece and Italy. Leaner is meaner. The combined brawn of India and the US alone would make such an arrangement one to get the attention of the bad guys. But what do I know, I am just a neandarthal, or something along those lines! ;)

[GOP_1900AD]

And you demonstrate the very lack of geopolitical courage which has issued forth from utopian, globalist intellectuals since 1945, and got us into this mess in the first place. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Travis McGee]

Interesting article and true enough I'm sure. When I look up the ladder at work, I see that the top levels don't give the slightest thought about where we'll be in 10 years. They think about the next 1--3 years, and only about how to get to the payout.

Have you ever wanted a peek at the "Big Picture?"

.

Here it is!

.

There is NO "Big Picture."

Just venal humans making venal decisions with a narrow time horizon.

That's just IMHO.

[GOP_1900AD]

Yes indeed.

[GOP_1900AD]

Sadly, in most cases this is correct. It is certainly the norm these days. I wonder what people would think of an Andrew Jackson like character today? I think I know the answer; they'd destroy him. Again, sad.

[PatrickHenry]

A second proposal is outlined by Ambassador Mark Palmer in his book Breaking the Real Axis of Evil. Ambassador Palmer goes well beyond the Bush Administration and suggests that America adopt as its national purpose the ousting of all dictators in the world by 2025. He argues that dictatorship is the true evil in the world, and that democratic nations led by the United States and its President should strategize and implement a plan to get rid of all the dictators everywhere.

Interesting goal. A bit ambitious. How do we achieve it without losing the benefits by being engaged in continuous wars for the next generation? Possibly by (1) identifying them, possibly with a grander version of the "axis of evil" speech; (2) depriving them of their WMD; (3) isolating them from others of their ilk; (4) bombarding them in various ways with our ideas, our products, etc.; and (5) assisting (or covertly creating) their internal democracy movements -- as we are presumably doing in Iran.

There could be exceptions. For example, most of Africa is dictatorships, over 50 of them. But although they condemn themselves to perpetual wretchedness, they are no threat to us. Such places could be put on the back-burner of this new grand strategy.