At the Duke Conference on Grand Strategy that I was fortunate enough to attend a comment was made and widely concurred with that:
"Grand Strategy is typically crafted by some speech writer, and then discovered 20 years later by some historian looking back for a way to explain or describe what had transpired" or words to that effect.
Most appear to be built around some threat as a focal point and are more a naming after the fact of what has been done then any cogent scheme going in.
You'd think we be smarter than that. But as mentioned above, if Grand Strategy is some "vital consensus;" that's virtually impossible to get on the front end. Far easier to describe what the majority position actually did post facto.
But here we are today. I am intrigued by FDR's approach to Grand Strategy, and he had one that he was prepared to employ following WWII, but died before he could implement it. I think it makes a great point of departure for looking at what a Grand Strategy might look like today (tailored for the new realities, of course):
1. The "Four Freedoms": Of Speech, of Religion, from fear, from want
2. The "Four Policemen": The United States, Great Britain, Russia, and China
3. The End of Colonialism
4. The promotion of Self Determination
Churchill blanched at any partnership with Russia or China; and was adamantly opposed to ending colonialism.
There must be greater shared responsibility for world order today, though the number may be more than 4, the states have changed, and "policeman" may not be the best role; and certainly the remnants of colonialism are at the heart of so many conflicts; as is the denial of self determination.
So my vote is we put FDR's position on the table and move forward from there. We could do a lot worse.
Bookmarks