go to top

The U.S. Needs Less, Not More, Grand Strategy

Steve Yetiv Friday, Feb. 15, 2013

Critics of U.S. foreign policy often argue that the United States lacks a grand strategy -- a set of principles, norms and goals applied consistently to foreign policy. Many have argued, for example, that Washington's reluctance to take strong action to help overthrow Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, or its failure to support protesters in places like Bahrain, results from a grand strategy deficit. In fact, the critics have it wrong in this age-old debate. What Washington needs, whether under a Democratic or a Republican administration, is actually less grand strategic thinking.

Political pundits and scholars alike love to talk about grand strategy as if it were an aristocratic sport. Scholars often interpret how major states behave in terms of two basic grand strategies: “balance of power” strategy, which requires action chiefly to prevent any one country from becoming too strong and which largely ignores moral considerations; or “hegemonic” strategy, which calls for dominating others as a means of creating stability either regionally or globally. Washington, the argument often runs, should embrace one or the other of these grand strategies, or else formulate some other type of approach. Advocates appear to believe that a grand strategy, whatever it is, can help organize America's foreign policy, allow it to plan and prioritize, link its means and ends, deter or dragoon its enemies and enhance U.S. credibility. ...

Want to Read the Rest?
Login or Subscribe Today.
Monthly
$ 11.99 for 1 month
  • Two-week FREE trial access.
  • Cancel any time.
  • $11.99 each month.
Try It FREE
Quarterly
$ 17.99 for 3 months
  • Two-week FREE trial access.
  • Cancel any time.
  • $17.99 every three months.
Try It FREE
Annual
$ 59.99 1 year
  • Two-week FREE trial access.
  • Cancel any time.
  • Just $59.99 a year.
Try It FREE