If a national security policy is to be worth more than the paper it is printed on, it needs to serve as a guide to making tough policy choices by outlining priorities and indicating where trade-offs may have to be made. But controversies around two long-standing U.S. strategic objectives show how poorly strategy is guiding current policy.
These objectives are to develop a new and deeper partnership between the United States and India and to open up new sources of energy in the Western Hemisphere to decrease U.S. dependence on overseas sources. One secondary impact of these strategies would be to weaken Russia’s clout as an energy superpower, especially in relation to Europe. Another would be to weaken the emerging coalition of “eastern autocracies”—Russia and China—and “southern democracies”—Brazil, India and South Africa—that has in recent years worked to block U.S. and European initiatives in various international bodies. ...
To read the rest, sign up to try World Politics Review
- TWO WEEKS FREE.
- Cancel any time.
- After two weeks, just $11.99 monthly or $94.99/year.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- The Realist Prism: GOP’s Inconsistent Foreign Policy Appeal in Midterms Could Backfire
- Global Insights: Chemical Weapons Regime Must Be Updated to Better Counter Terrorist Threat
- Strategic Horizons: The U.S. Army Makes Its Case for Post-COIN Relevance
- World Citizen: Islamic State Fight Could Leave Lasting Scars on U.S.-Turkey Ties
- New Growth for Nuclear Energy Depends on Asia