If a national security policy to be worth more than the paper it is printed on, it needs to serve as a guide to making tough policy choices. But recent controversies around two U.S. strategic objectives show how poorly strategy is guiding policy. In the Devyani Khobragade case and the Keystone XL pipeline decision, the administration has lacked any mechanism to choose between competing priorities.
The Realist Prism

Khobragade, Keystone Cases Illustrate Fragmented U.S. Policy

By , , Column

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

Individual
Free Trial

  • TWO WEEKS FREE.
  • Cancel any time.
  • After two weeks, just $11.99 monthly or $94.99/year.
subscribe

Institutional
Subscriptions

Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.

request trial

Login

Already a member? Click the button below to login.

login