My Grand Strategy

[Lastdingo]

Several of the ongoing threads have inspired me to capsulize what I think are the flaws of current U.S. grand strategy, and what I would propose.

Here are what I consider the flawed assumptions of our current strategy:

1. It assumes that spreading liberalism is feasible. (It's not just democracy. Illiberal democracies are possible).

It's even doubtful if it's beneficial. Demacratic Arab states could become nationalistic, merge and strong nation south of the NATO and pallied with Russia for many practical purposes. Dictators are notorious for not giving up their rule, so do never merge with other states.

2. It assumes that we can succeed with half way measures, specifically without making major changes in our systems of rights and prerogatives, and without changing our petroleum addiction.
3. The criterion is uses for identifying strategic partners is too narrow. We base partnership on whether another state pursues AQ rather than whether they tolerate the ideology of Islamic extremism.

So, my grand strategy has five components:

1. Disengage as much as possible from the Islamic world

I guess you mean physically, not diplomatically?

2. End our petroleum addiction

Oil prices as high as 50 $/bl make synthetic petroleum based on coal economically feasible. The plant-based solutions occupy too much agricultural area.

3. Develop a list of partner and non-partner states based on whether they tolerate the ideology of Islamic extremism, not just whether they chase AQ. Obvisouly, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and others would be non-parnters. End aid to, immigration from, and visas to the citizens of non-partners. Do not renew the visas of citizens of non-partherns.

I disagree on Egypt. It's one of the most promising Arab states. They actually improve the living standards of their people without much oil ressources. Furthermore they're a key to make conventional war against Israel (im)possible and a long-term friend of the USA (they received modern military tech and had joint exercises).

4. Approach cyberspace as a key battlefield. Consider hosting web sites or transmitting information which advocates violence as a hostile act. Take action against it. In other words, don't allow the extremists to hide behind the importance we place on free speech and the transnational nature of information.

Waging war in the internet would be similar to waging war in space - many nations are intent to have a peaceful zone there. Furthermore, pushing extremists into the underground just makes surveillance much harder.

5. Launch spoiling raids as necessary against hostile groups.
This is too general to be understood. What kind of attacks?

Actually, I don't think it's a grand strategy. Grand strategy should involve much more, this one is just a strategy of how to deal with a specific foe.
It's furthermore very unilateral and -I'm sorry- quite simplistic in some regards. Isolating yourself from some states won't help much.
Musharraf probably needs some intelligence service's aid to keep himself in power in his domestic struggles with Islamists. You don't want Islamists to take over the nuclear power Pakestan, don't you? So it would be more wise to keep him in power and not to cut all ties.
Quite the same applies to Saudi-Arabia, although on a lesser scale.

And what did you mean with spoiling attacks?
Attacking enemies everwhere with bombs or commandos would often violate other nation's sovereignty and I believe it's understandable that this does not help. Imagine Some third world coutnry killing dissidents in the USA - that would certainly upset some people...

Islamists aren't a solic bloc, but a huge crowd that communicats with each other but co-ordinates largely through what their ideology allos or not (afaik). So it would be a possible strategy to reduce the level of threat by spreading disunity and let factions oppose each other. Other than islamist factios could be strengthened (not so much with compromising direct aid, but otherwise) in important regions. National leaders and faction could be allowed to humiliate the west on some occasions to strengthen them in comparison to Islamists.

What you propose is a slightly isolationist policy with some offensive actions that do not involve large contingents abroad. It sounds a lot like a collection of "that will make us feel better" measures.
Nevertheless, it could evolve into something that would convince me if this strategy would include more co-operation with partners and more specifically tailored solutions to specific problems.