All countries have "Grand" Strategies. The word grand is unfortunate as there is little that is grand about these, and perhaps the word was meant to convey overriding national strategy. In some cases, like for USA, parts of the strategy are explicitly enunciated. In other cases they are more implicit, but are nevertheless in existence even if put into practice inconsistently & ineffectually.
By Vivek Joshi
Advisor to
A-Joshi Strategy Consultants, Mumbai, India
Image
Attribute: American flag : Mark Engelbrecht /Flickr/Creative Commons
All countries have "Grand" Strategies. The word grand is unfortunate as there is little that is grand
about these, and perhaps the word was meant to convey overriding national
strategy. In some cases, like for USA, parts of the strategy are explicitly
enunciated. In other cases they are more implicit, but are nevertheless in
existence even if put into practice inconsistently & ineffectually.
The exception would be in the case of collapsed states, which are unable to
formulate a strategy. The grand strategy, its evolution and practice
easiest to understand is that of USA, which is covered in part-1 of this series
of short notes. This is an analytical study, and neither prescriptive nor
“evaluative”. The analysis will subsequently be extended to understand
the grand strategy of India & China in Parts 2 & 3 respectively.
In the period preceding World War I
& in the 19th century, a key part of the U.S. grand strategy was to not
allow in the western hemisphere a significant presence of an outside great
power. This was enunciated by Presidents Monroe, Wilson &
Roosevelt. This period is now of primarily historical interest, but can
give some pointers on the actions of potential regional hegemony in
future. It is worth noting that this strategy was enunciated even before
the country had the capabilities to enforce it.
In the period between the two world
wars there were no superpowers, a term which became popular after World War
II. Britain & France were then considered pre-eminent powers. The U.S. strategy as an off-shore balancer
was limited to preventing unquestioned dominance by any power in Europe and
East Asia.
1945 - 1991: The US grand strategy
was to not allow the Soviet Union to dominate Eurasia. The Marshall Plan
& NATO were examples of the grand strategy in action. The strategy of
not allowing another great power into the western hemisphere continued.
The Cuban missile crisis was an example of a crisis arising from grand
strategy put into practice by both the superpowers.
1991- 2011: After the collapse of
the Soviet Union, the grand strategy shifted gears to “not to allow a global
level challenger to emerge”. Western Europe, Arabia & North-East Asia were
key geographies. Seen in this perspective, the cost to USA of the proxy
war in Afghanistan (in economic terms) is small compared to the benefit of
expediting the end of the only global challenger (Soviet Union).
The cumulative cost of the subsequent wars in Afghanistan & Iraq, at less
than 2% of GDP, is not very large, though neither wars were fought as part of
grand strategy and hence not relevant to the analysis.
2011 onwards: The ‘pivot’ to Asia is
the key development of grand strategy in action, as Eastern Asia is becoming equally
important as Western Europe & the Arabian Gulf. This is the area in which the practice of the
grand strategy will be seen, through a combination of ‘approaches’ which are interesting
combinations of the practice of Liberalism & Realism schools of
international relations:
a) Balance of Power: The notorious India-Pak equation was
one such example. In the next 10-15 Japan (& India) will be supported by USA
to contain China. Turkey, Saudi-Arabia & Iran will balance each
other. In another two decades an assertive Japan will likely need to be
balanced. The strategy will then change, with China supported to contain Japan.
India will not need containment. Though these shifts appear confusing, however,
the net result expected is aligned with grand strategy, i.e., not to allow a
global level challenger or undisputed regional hegemon to emerge. Europe will
need less active management, where the EU may be headed for eventual
disintegration at least in political terms, and a coalition in East Europe will
be built to contain Russia. Just about the only axis which can balance USA in
the near future is France-Germany-Russia-China, and that will not be allowed.
b) Controllable instability:
Partial instability in their respective regions keeps regional leader countries
unbalanced, and looking for friends. Instability out of control can lead to
break-down and wars which are, of course, not in the interest of anyone.
c) Regional Powers: These powers can help to keep
regions stable in their own interests. Examples are India, South Africa,
Israel, Turkey, Poland & Brazil. However, regional powers are not to be
allowed to grow to big powers status, even in the unlikely scenario that any of
them can do so.
d) Economics: Build relationships leading to
economic (inter)-dependency. Unlike the fate of many other past empires, this
synergistic relationship bodes well for continuation of American dominance. The
Roman & British empires practiced this to some extent. Spread of
democracy is another aspect which could support the grand strategy, and help to
stabilize its dominance, though several countries are not yet ready for
democracy.
e) Military dominance: Dominance of the seas &
oceans, which is similar to the strategy of the British Empire. If the ‘tools’
mentioned above are successful, overwhelming force projection by the Navy &
Air-Force could be adequate and a very large standing land army may not be
needed. Given its geography USA is comfortable being an off-shore
balancer, and perhaps the grand strategy is likely to continue to be successful
if it acts as an off-shore balancer only. Since the nature of warfare is
evolving, the dominance of oceans will be extended to dominance of Space. The
previous decade was effectively a “lost decade” for Technology. The next 15-20 years will see a significant
acceleration in the military & consequently civilian applications of
various technologies which are on the cusp of breakthroughs. It is useful to note the synergistic aspect
of this dominance which helps ensure uninterrupted global trade, while keeping
the U.S. mainland out of reach of any other power.
All ‘empires’ fade away sooner or
later, so how long can this grand strategy be effective? As Asia heads
towards increased geopolitical uncertainties, how will the grand strategies of
key Asian countries evolve? We will
examine two key countries, India & China the part 2 & part 3
respectively.
About the Author:
Vivek Joshi is
an Advisor to A-Joshi Strategy Consultants Pvt Ltd based in Mumbai, at www.expertstrat.com.
He has international experience in in various sectors, and is an expert in
Strategy, Innovation, Venture Capital, Knowledge Management and General
Management. Vivek is an invited speaker and contrubutes to knowledge in
Strategy, Venture Capital, Economics, Challenges of the 21st Century
and Geopolitics.
Cite this Article:
Cite this Article:
Joshi, Vivek
"ESSAY | "Grand" Strategies - U.S.A. : Part 1" IndraStra Global 002 No: 04 (2016) 0026,
http://www.indrastra.com/2016/04/ESSAY-Grand-Strategies-USA-Part-I-002-04-2016-0026.html | ISSN 2381-3652 | Download the PDF - LINK
.jpg)
