Hi, oda175. Welcome aboard. Good point but
it raises questions.
How do you propose to get a coherent and lasting Grand Strategy in a nation that has changes in its political character every two, four, six and / or eight years?
Your point on there being no nation or group of nations on which to focus our near term strategy is of course correct. How do we strategically address that situation?
Having lived through the Cold War, I can tell you that containment wasn't quite as neat as a lot of folks today like to think it was... :wry:
Yes. Here's a good example:
LINK.
"I can do anything better than you..." as the old song says...:(
Hadn't heard that before but
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ski
Some Soviet theorists beleived Grand Strategy was a Western invention, and that it simply did not exist.
realistically, it makes a lot of sense...
Thanks, Ski. Interesting. Bears some thought though
your comment on the economic side is almost certainly correct. Possible they did consider it but the ideologues wouldn't let them change.
I don't think the US has ever had a Grand Strategy however there's no doubt we have had and have some enduring policies -- not least on the economic side.
I think our policy, unwritten in a sense, of not tolerating threats and using disruption instead of co-option is a long standing thing as well but do not believe it rises to the level of a strategy because the application from Administration to Administration has been very different and occasionally not practiced. Containment was a policy for a long time but it was not, strictly speaking a strategy. Things to ponder.
Thanks again.
Possible, I suppose. My question would be
Is it a Grand Strategy -- or a subset and one of the earlier implementations of the policy of not tolerating threats?
I suppose the distinction depends upon the audience
more than any other thing...
Thanks, Ionut.
One can go to the Webster's definition and see that a 'strategy' is a defined plan to execute a policy or achieve a goal. The DoD Dictionary defines it thus: "A prudent idea or set of ideas for employing the instruments of national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and/or multinational objectives."
Based on that, seems to me a strategy is the method elected to achieve a result. A policy would seem to be a statement of a desired result. Elimination of threatS (plural) would thus seem to be a policy and the particular methods used to achieve that result in each particular case to eliminate a threat (singular) would be a strategy. Obviously, one could extend that to a series of subsequent or related threats but I question if that should be applied as the proper appellation over 200 years...
An interesting aside is whether disruption is a policy or strategy, it is notable that it is the preferred or most common US technique. That implies a question about the national psyche (which I know the psychologists and others rather foolishly contend does nor exist... ;) ).
However, I look forward to hearing what comes out of the conference (my policy); I await your report with bated breath (my strategery) :D
I do agree with Wilf that it is an important definition for those concerned with execution; believe that is less true so for the masses and even those fields of academe not directly concerned -- and that would include Historians IMO. Still, strategy is, I think, a frequently misused word... :wry: