Week 14: Grand Strategy

Question 1

“What is Grand Strategy_ Sweeping a Conceptual Minefield_

Answer 1

”* The authors argue that the concept of grand strategy in U.S. foreign policy is no longer viable due to shifts in global power dynamics, domestic political polarization, and growing public distrust of experts.

• The changing nature of power, including its diffusion and the rise of non-state actors, has made it increasingly difficult for states to exert traditional influence and achieve their goals through military might.
• Deep societal divisions and a lack of shared national narrative have made it impossible to forge a consensus on foreign policy goals and strategies.
• The rise of populism, characterized by distrust of elites and institutions, further undermines the possibility of developing and implementing a coherent grand strategy.
  “

Question 2

” John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, “The Case for Offshore Balancing- A Superior U.S. Grand Strategy_
“

Answer 2

”* The authors, John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, advocate for a ““offshore balancing”” approach to U.S. grand strategy, arguing that it would be more effective and less costly than the current strategy of liberal hegemony.
* Offshore balancing prioritizes maintaining U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere and preventing the rise of regional hegemons in Europe, Northeast Asia, and the Persian Gulf.
* The authors contend that the U.S. should rely on regional powers to balance against potential threats, intervening militarily only when necessary and withdrawing forces as soon as possible.
* They argue that offshore balancing would reduce defense spending, the risk of terrorism, and the likelihood of nuclear proliferation, while preserving U.S. primacy and safeguarding liberty at home.
“

Question 3

Patrick Porter, “Why America’s Grand Strategy Has Not Changed- Power, Habit, and the U.S. Foreign Policy Establishment_

Answer 3

”* The stability of U.S. grand strategy is attributed to the interaction of the country’s significant material power and habituated ideas within its foreign policy establishment.

• Referred to as ““the Blob,”” the U.S. foreign policy establishment perpetuates an ideology of U.S. global leadership and primacy, which limits foreign policy choices and stifles debate on alternative strategies.
• The author uses the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump to demonstrate the resilience of the strategy of primacy, even in the face of pressures for change.
• The author predicts that U.S. grand strategy, driven by the Blob’s habituated ideas and the country’s material power, will likely remain resistant to significant change barring extraordinary circumstances.
  “

Question 4

Rebecca Friedman Lissner, “What is Grand Strategy_ Sweeping a Conceptual Minefield_

Answer 4

”* The grand strategy literature can be broken down into three distinct research agendas, those that treat grand strategy as a variable to be explained, those that treat grand strategy as a process of formulation, and those that treat grand strategy as a blueprint for action.

• The “grand strategy as variable” agenda seeks to explain the origins of a state’s grand strategy, often focusing on great powers and major strategic pivots, with scholars debating whether the sources of grand strategy are found in the international system, domestic considerations, or individual leaders.
• The “grand strategy as process” research agenda focuses on the decision-making process used to formulate and implement grand strategies, including the role of strategic planning.
• The “grand strategy as blueprint” research agenda is entirely prescriptive, seeking to influence the future course of a state’s foreign policy by offering recommendations for action. “

Question 5

Rhodes_A Foreign Policy for the World as It Is

Answer 5

”* The Biden administration has faced challenges to restoring America’s global leadership due to the looming possibility of Trump’s return and the decline of the rules-based international order.
* Although Biden’s foreign policy has adapted to some shifting global realities, the administration needs to re-evaluate its approach to overcome political constraints, avoid maximalist objectives, and address concerns of the global South.
* The author suggests that the United States should focus on diplomacy to prevent global conflict, particularly regarding Russia-Ukraine, Iran-Israel, and China-Taiwan, as these are areas where the American public is not prepared for direct military involvement.
* The author argues that the United States should prioritize its own democratic renewal and focus on international cooperation in areas like AI and clean energy while supporting democracy by strengthening existing open societies and aiding civil society groups globally.
“

Question 6

Why American Power Endures_ The U.S.-Led Order Isn’t in Decline.pdff

Answer 6

”* The United States is not in decline, but rather is a unique world power that has built a liberal world order that offers a ““third way”” between anarchy and hierarchy.
* The U.S. has historically benefited from its geographic isolation, allowing it to develop a republican government and, later, step into power vacuums left by waning empires to shape world order.
* America’s strength stems not only from its material power but also from its ability to forge alliances, its multicultural society, its robust civil society, and its capacity for self-correction.
* In the face of challenges from China and Russia, the U.S. should leverage its unique advantages to reaffirm its commitment to an open, rules-based international order and lead in addressing global challenges.
“

Question 7

syllabus Q: Given the changes in the international system since the beginning of WWI, how has the role of the United States changed? (AI answer)

Answer 7

”* The United States has shifted from a largely isolationist role in the early 20th century to a dominant position as the architect and leader of the liberal international order after World War II.
* This shift was driven by the country’s growing economic and military power, as well as a recognition among policymakers that American security and prosperity depended on global engagement.
* Despite challenges from rising powers and internal divisions, the U.S. has largely maintained its leading role in global affairs due to the persistence of a ““primacy”” mindset among its foreign policy elite, as well as the country’s unique geographic advantages and capacity for alliance building.
* The U.S. now faces a choice between adapting its grand strategy to a more multipolar world or reaffirming its commitment to maintaining its dominant position in the face of competition from China and Russia.
“

Question 8

syllabus Q: Given more recent developments in that same system, what should America’s role look like in the future? (AI Answer)

Answer 8

”* As it transitioned from relative isolation to a dominant role on the world stage, the U.S. developed and implemented a strategy of primacy, which resulted in a robust, U.S.-led liberal international order.
* Some scholars have proposed alternative grand strategies such as offshore balancing, a less interventionist approach that would prioritize partnerships and burden-sharing with regional actors to address security concerns.
* Despite internal political challenges, the U.S. has largely maintained its commitment to primacy because its foreign policy elite, sometimes called ““the Blob,”” tends to reinforce this strategy through repeated cycles of socialization and by controlling access to positions of power.
* While primacy has been remarkably persistent, changes in the global system, such as the rise of new technologies and the threat of climate change, may necessitate changes to America’s role in the world to ensure its long-term security and prosperity.
“

Question 9

“Sylabus Q: Is unilateral global leadership a worthy strategic objective? What are the alternatives?
(AI Answer)”

Answer 9

”* Unilateral global leadership is unlikely to be a successful strategic objective for the U.S. because other countries may be less inclined to defer to U.S. leadership as they did in the past, given that power is more diffused globally, as noted by Mearsheimer and Walt.
* The authors of the first source argue that grand strategies in general are not suited to today’s world, which they describe as ““entropic,”” making such strategies counterproductive.
* Military interventions are less effective at achieving national goals, and can sometimes worsen situations, in today’s world because military power is increasingly issue-specific and cannot easily translate from one domain to another.
* The authors of the first source propose that the U.S. should instead focus on ““more pragmatic forms of problem solving,”” making decisions on a case-by-case basis instead of relying on grand strategic commitments.
“