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.
- Islamic State Threat Puts Independence on Hold for Iraq’s Kurds
- In Fight Against Islamic State, Iraqi Kurds Are Problematic Partners
- Diplomatic Fallout: Having Tried Hope, Obama Turns to Fear to Reaffirm U.S. Power
- Strategic Horizons: Assessing Obama’s Legacy in National Security Policy
- Global Insights: Once Again Relevant, NATO Will Now Be Judged on Effectiveness