[QUOTE=Bob's World;66964]
The fact that America has operated without a "Grand Strategy" for so long, may well be an argument that supports Wilfs proposition above...
What is really lacking is some statement of understanding of the envriornment that we are operating within, and how that then shapes how such doctrines can best be applied in order to best sustain the main objectives in a manner that does not abuse our global neighbors in the process. This is what I would hope that a Grand Strategy would provide. A vision and a context within which to achieve that vision. This would guide all of US government in how we approach our day to day business and craft our plans; and also help our friends and foes alike to interpret our words and actions more clearly and thereby avoid dangerous misinterpretations of deed or intent.
When I raised a similar argument with a senior NSC official who worked in the Bush 43 White House I got a lot of push back and was referred to the 2006 National Security Strategy as a clear expression of such a strategy; I was also assured that the classified part of NSS, as well as the National Implementation Plan for the War on Terror (NIP-GWOT) provide the kind of overarching framework that I was complaining that was missing.
I ultimately believe it is a matter of interpretation and of how one defines the notion of grand strategy (hence my focus on having some commonly accepted notion of the term when debating it). For example, some of the most respected scholars such as Gaddis gave favorable initial reviews of Bush's grand strategy
I believe that one can find a general set of principles guiding the foreign policy of most administrations; sometimes they are written in formal documents, sometimes they can be inferred from their rhetoric and their actions. I also believe that there is some amount of continuity between administrations due mostly to external conditions. I understand and generally agree with Ken's point that due to changes in political leadership every four or eight years it is unlikely to have specific grand strategies passed on from one president to the next. However, I believe an argument could be made that on many particular issues the de facto policies do carry on from one administration to the next. For example, I don't think (actually that's more of a hope) Obama's decision on Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, or even Iran will be that much different from a McCain administration (or from Bush's, if you buy Chris Brose's argument)
So, while in some ways I share your general hope that the Obama administration will be able to develop a Grand Strategy of its own, I am much more worried about them being able finding specific solutions to the many policy challenges they face in Af-Pak (as they say now), Iraq or Iran. I believe I ultimately would prefer if they would focus less on grandiose plans and more on finding pragmatic solutions to the many problems they face. I guess you could argue that the latter may require the former, but I'm not sure that's really the case.