The basis of U.S. Grand Strategy since at least 1945 has been rooted in the defeat, denial or containment of some threat. Without a threat to fill the role of opponent, U.S. Grand Strategy falls apart.

We have been struggling since the collapse of the Soviets to find some bogeyman who is ready, willing and able to fill this role. We've interviewed and tried several reluctant candidates, but none really work the way the Soviets did. Oh for the good old days...

At a conference at Duke last year on Grand Strategy I enjoyed hearing the thoughts of some of our brightest minds on this topic. Finally I asked Dr. Gaddis of Yale, "Does a Grand Strategy requires some threat to counter, or can it be cast in positive terms to promote something instead"? I could hear the wheels turning all around this room full of PhDs; but no one really had an answer. It was almost like no one had ever considered the possibility of such a thing.

Of late we have been attempting to shoehorn "Islam" in various ways into this role of opponent. Personally, I think it is time to decide what it is we are for, and promote that. This is more likely to build us the alliances we need to counter real threats once they emerge. Emerge they will, but our current approach is not the best way to prepare for them.