|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
US Grand Strategy
The grand strategy of the only hyperpower of the world has been an object of much discussion, but only at the level of policy analysts and experts. US strategy has shifted from a barely covert quest for global primacy since the end of the Cold War, to a more belligerent, overt imperialism in the past two years. Whether such a strategy actually enhances US national security is another matter. The Nov. 2004 presidential election would be a crucial opportunity to debate the future direction of American strategy. However, with the two major candidates differing little on this topic, there is little hope that the campaign will serve as a wake-up call for the electorate. The below links provide viewpoints on US grand strategy from several perspectives.
Major Sources
Ongoing Debate
- Five Big American Blunders in Terror war - Military analyst W. M. Arkin enumerates the biggest shortcomings of US policy in the "war on terror". Number five, Never mistake a mirror for a window, may be the most critical one. The Bush administration is picking battles and choosing allies in the Islamic world with the presumption that Islamists "think like us". But neither our enemies, nor our self-declared allies do. Basing the entire US strategy on fallacious foundations is the biggest long term threat to American national security. LA Times, September 2004 (registration required)
- In Iraq, Strategic Failures - (Washington Post - registration required) Jim Hoagland says the Bush administration's actions in Iraq are based on folly, not strategy. (August 2004)
- Misconceived Military Shuffle - The NY Times editors miss the point. Withdrawal of US forces from German and South Korea makes absolute sense, with the new threats indeed far more different now than they were during the Cold War. That doesn't mean, however, that the overall Bush administration strategy behind these projected moves is not faulty. The moves may be driven by the administration's twisted foreign policy of "punishing" allies who support the Iraq occupation and "rewarding" those who don't, rather than a sound identification of threats and assessment of cost-effective means to mitigate such threats. (NY Times editorial, August 2004 - registration required)
- Pre-empting Pre-emption: Iran Responds - In response to Israeli threats of pre-emptive strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, and fist-shaking by US officials, the Iranian Defense Minister threatens to attack Israel's nuclear reactor at Dimona. The latest developments expose the vulnerabilities in the pre-emptive doctrine propounded since 9/11 by the Bush administration. The Osirak attack by Israel in the 1980s may have made sense, but in the current charged atmosphere, will an aggressive pre-emptive policy bring more security, or less, to the United States? Nazila Fathi, NY Times, August 2004 (registration required)
- A New Grand Strategy - (LA Times - registration required) Gary Hart, ex-Senator and co-author of a report on terrorism that presaged the 9/11 attacks, questions whether the US grand strategy compromises American principles and undermines the concept of the republic. (July 2004)
- Rethinking the Strategy - "... we should encourage freedom worldwide, but stop the export of democracy which puts the United States in collision with most of the world, interferes with the sovereignty of other nations and complicates our War on Terror...". Dimitri K. Simes, President, Nixon Center, In the National Interest, June 2004
| |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
