In Defense of Grand Strategy
….Secondly, sustaining the national or group identity is a critical component of grand strategy that makes it a different, more expressly political/cultural exercise than crafting strategy as Clausewitzians use the term as being driven by policy. Grand strategy should guide policy formulation because it is not just a set of concrete structural ends, or a laundry list of “vital interests” but a constructive, values-laden, attractive, motivating, civilizational narrative. An ideal or cultural identity for which men and societies are willing to go to war, to stand, fight and die. As Thomas P.M. Barnett once put it, for a “Future worth creating“. Grand strategy is a defiant clarion call of civilizational supremacy, marshalling those who will fight for that which is not, but could be.
Men do not stand, fight and die for mere instrumentalities. You can show a man how to do an unpleasant chore in the most efficient manner but he may remain unmotivated to do it, still less to make terrible sacrifices to do it. Conversely, the passion of faction is strong, but usually rejects the logic of strategy for it’s own self-destructive calculus. It divides the house against itself in the hour of maximum danger.
Not every nation needs or can execute a grand strategy. Having sound policy and competent strategy, as Adam Elkus suggested, is often more than sufficient ( nations frequently prevail despite incoherent policies and poor strategies) and is no small task to get right in itself. A grand strategy, if required, is something that crystallizes into consensus because it emanates from deep cultural roots as well as empirical dangers – without such an anchor to give it legitimacy, it is less likely to amount even to a sound policy than a trite political campaign.
Page 3 of 3 | Previous page
PB:
January 31st, 2012 at 12:53 pm
What is “grand strategy”? From a leftist perspective…
“Grand strategy” is little more than imperial doctrine, a “soft” public relations term for strategic studies, a growing academic discipline with origins in the war ministries of an earlier era’s imperial powers.
Both of these articles below from Truth Out are very interesting and worth reading. They look at the effort to create grand strategy programs in universities. I think these programs are a good thing and a necessary step in improving our ability to think strategically, but they have a different point of view.
http://www.truth-out.org/how-private-warmongers-and-us-military-infiltrated-american-universities/1321396333
http://www.truth-out.org/defunct-war-strategy-program-may-still-overshadow-uw-madisons-history-dissent/
Andy:
January 31st, 2012 at 1:42 pm
A grand strategy, if required, is something that crystallizes into consensus because it emanates from deep cultural roots as well as empirical dangers – without such an anchor to give it legitimacy, it is less likely to amount even to a sound policy than a trite political campaign.
By that standard we shouldn’t expect the USA to have a grand strategy anytime soon.
Madhu:
January 31st, 2012 at 1:58 pm
The United States Foreign Policy Apparatus (TUSFPA) is addicted to its idea of “growth”, democracy promotion, and “stability”. I think Andrew Bacevich wrote about some of that in American Empire, although he tends to paint with a broad brush. Polemics and all that. You can find the same criticism from the right. Perhaps Scoblete on RealClearWorld?
.
We shouldn’t expect the USA to have a grand strategy, but we can at least pare away a few non-essentials. And by that, I mean parts of TUSFPA. If we have less DC constituencies, maybe we will have less mission creep. I know, I know. A pipe dream but it doesn’t mean you give up the good fight.
.
Peter Munson’s latest article on SWJ is good on the process which gets us to where we are. Maybe we can’t change it. We ought to at least give it a good college try….
Michael:
January 31st, 2012 at 6:11 pm
I like the petri dish analogy. Far from perfect, it still makes sense in many ways. Think of the world as a big petri dish with dozens of colonies of competing bacteria. Each colony can either (1) form a defense against other colonies, (2) develop a symbiotic relationship with other colonies, or (3) attack and usurp other colonies. In a geopolitical context, these bacterial colonies are executing foreign policy. Societies differ from bacterial colonies in that they can consciously decide whether to act in offense, defense, or cooperation as the circumstances change. That’s strategy. I think it would make more sense to have any strategy rather than vague and idealistic policies.
Larry Dunbar:
February 1st, 2012 at 12:20 am
“A grand strategy, if required, is something that crystallizes into consensus because it emanates from deep cultural roots as well as empirical dangers – without such an anchor to give it legitimacy, it is less likely to amount even to a sound policy than a trite political campaign.”
*
I am not sure that grand strategy crystallizes into consensus, but is the point that crystallizes the story, at least in narrative decision-making.
*
The narrative could be thought of as a linear deep story, along the line formed by the narrative’s ends, ways, and means.
*
But a linear story is too shallow for a nation that is close, but deeply divided, such as the USA. The story need to form something other than a line.
*
To create a truly deep story, a story that brings everyone together, even with deep divides, the story needs to form a plane (think of it as a cross-section of the story).
*
In physics, to form a plane, and ultimately a domain (the story) within the plane (a cross-section), a line needs a point (actually we need three points, the start, a way and means to the end, and a point outside the narrative.
*
I think grand strategy is the point outside the narrative, while the narrative is the deep story that “emanates [linearly] from deep cultural roots as well as empirical dangers ”
*
In other words, the deep cultural roots as well as empirical dangers create a force from their center of gravity. All force is linear (such as sunlight reaching the earth), at least in two directions. It only becomes non-linear when it moves as energy (energy is force plus distance).
zen:
February 1st, 2012 at 3:31 am
Hi Folks,
.
PB – You are right. That was well worth reading, though I feel somewhat cheated that no zany billionaire benefactor ever sends me a check for my humble grand strategic efforts. C’mon, c’mon, just a few hundred grand to tide my blogging efforts over…. 🙂
.
Andy – Agreed!
.
Doc Madhu – Paring away involves choice. Our elite sees choice A or Choice B and says “Yes”.
.
Michael – Analogies with biological ecosystems work fairly well with geopolitics, in big picture terms, segways nicely into economic considerations
.
Larry – If by:
.
To create a truly deep story, a story that brings everyone together, even with deep divides, the story needs to form a plane (think of it as a cross-section of the story).
.
You mean the narrative cuts across demographic groups in society, connecting them, then I agree.