PSC 1003; Lecture 13
PSC 1003; Lecture 13 PSC 1003
Popular in Introduction to International Politics
Popular in Political Science
This 5 page Class Notes was uploaded by Eleanor Parry on Friday February 12, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PSC 1003 at George Washington University taught by Farrell, H in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 15 views. For similar materials see Introduction to International Politics in Political Science at George Washington University.
Reviews for PSC 1003; Lecture 13
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 02/12/16
Grand Strategy What is a Grand Strategy? • Definitional Questions: • Best thought of as a broad understanding of what a country needs to do to maintain its security. • Two main components: ◦ Goals - concrete understandings of the specific objectives the state needs to meet. ◦ Means - understandings regarding the best way to achieve those goals. Grand Strategy as Elite Consensus • One possible definition sees grand strategy as a shared consensus among FP decision-makers ◦ A state's grand strategy under this account is its foreign policy elite's theory about how to produce national security. ◦ Good for identifying elements of continuity and commonality. ◦ May systematically underplay divergences and differences. Grand Strategy as Specific Policy Guidelines • US periodically produces National Security Strategy documents. • Provides an overview of the US strategic stance towards the world. • But are not the product of a conscious exercise in long term planning. • As such, can be patchy and erratic. Why Does the US Need a Grand Strategy? • Other countries have serious debates over a national strategy, but do not usually have a close equivalent of the national security strategy document. ◦ Helps coordinate bureaucracy. ◦ Helps coordinate expectations with allies. ◦ Helps communicate intentions to rest of world (including enemies). Coordinating Bureaucracy • A difficult task - esp in a complex system such as the US. ◦ Different organizations with different bureaucratic goals. ◦ Difficulties of communication (overburdened NSC, limits of OMB) • National Security Strategy doesn't provide specific rules. • But broad guidelines and goals can help coordinate expectations. Coordinating with Allies • Alliance politics are always messy and awkward - for the hegemony as well as the allies themselves. ◦ Problems of trust. ◦ Problems of coordination. ◦ Problems of expectation setting. • National Security Strategy helps set parameters, and may reassure allies while squeezing them as necessary to do more. Communicate to Outside World • US wants to influence expectations of a variety of actors - including those which are hostile to it. • NSS can: ◦ Communicate broad understandings about priorities, and hence minimize frictions. ◦ Deter behavior not in the US interest by making credible threats. Different Grand Strategies • Deep Engagement • Neo-Isolationism • Others: ◦ Primacy ◦ International Institutionism ◦ Cooperative Security Deep (Selective ) Engagement • Bottom Lines: ◦ Preserve key alliances ◦ Maintain forward deployment ◦ Maintain Us military and economic leadership • Major Powers: Retain key alliances in Europe and Asia ◦ Some believe that a hegemony would threaten US military capabilities; Others do not ‣ This logic was more important during the Cold War than now ◦ War (or security competition) between other major powers is dangerous because: ‣ The US could get drawn in ‣ Competition could fuel proliferation - Japan, South Korea ‣ Competition (and war) are bad for trade/prosperity • Proliferation: ◦ Proliferation optimists are too starry-eyed. ◦ Proliferation by "rogues" is more dangerous, even though the probability of use may be low: terrorists are even more worrisome. • Maintain US leadership: ◦ Help maintain the open global economy by reducing insecurity and competition. ◦ Improves trade deals and helps maintain the US dollar as the reserve currency. Neo-Isolationists • Bottom-line: end alliances with Europe and Asia • US can maintain nuclear forces required to deter nuclear attacks, eve against a eurasian hegemony • US can maintain adequate conventional forces, even against a Eurasion hegemony: ◦ Ocean Buffers ◦ Nuclear uses against conventional invasion forces • A hegemony is unlikely to arise: ◦ Nuclear Weapons ◦ Balance of Power ◦ Geography (Asia) • Best way to avoid involvement is to withdraw • Proliferation: ◦ Could be good, not so bad, if wealthy stable countries ◦ US can't make much difference in many other cases • Economic value of global investment is small ◦ Not required to maintain open trading ◦ There is not a strong relationship between security guarantees/allies and trade ◦ Not required to maintain US $ as a reserve currency Grand Strategy Over Time Evidence from Strategy Documents • Strong continuities from administration to administration. • Goals: ◦ Promoting free markets ◦ Promoting spread of democracy • Means: ◦ Military Capacity ◦ Joint Action with Allies ◦ Economic Leverage But Also Changes • Bush 2002 Grand Strategy • Laid out doctrine of pre-emption • WMD created a justification for getting retaliation in first. • Meet threats before they are fully formed. Bush Approach to National Security • Argued that there was a change in threat (nexus of terrorism, rogue states, WMD) • Hence argues for a change in goals. ◦ Maintain military supremacy, meet the challenge of these threats. • And for a change in tools. ◦ Need for pre-emption. ◦ Big stress on democracy promotion. Pre-Emption Redux • 2006 National Security Strategy restated and expanded the argument for preemptive action. • Did not state clear when this would happen. • Caused unhappiness among both allies and rivals. 2010 Obama NSS • Gets rid of preemption, through preserves right to respond unilaterally. • Eschews regime change by force. • Deemphasizes 'terrorism' in favor of Al-Qaeda. • Recognizes that US cannot tackle these challenges alone. 2015 Obama NSS • Stresses need to protect American Values • Two fold emphasis. • I-Preventing return to old tensions. ◦ Commitment to keep on punishing Russia and supporting Ukraine ◦ ISIL/ISIS • II-Tackle non-traditional issues. ◦ Global Warming. ◦ International crime and gangs America Come Home Strategic Restraint • Reduction of active duty forces • Reducing Americas overseas influence • Geographical location favors restraint Benefits of Restraint • More money for education and infrastructure • US allies would be more responsible for their own security • Spend less money in general Implementing a Policy of Restraint • Taking troops out of Europe • Pulling troops out of Asia • Limited pullback from Middle east • Help Germany, South Korea and Japan receive nuclear arms Foundations of Restraint • Other states will be able to balance themselves • Nuclear weapons will prevent conflict from escalating America Don't Come Home Three Objectives 1. Global Institutions 2. Managing external environment to secure national security 3. Promoting Liberal Economic Order Costs of Deep Engagment • Budgetary Costs • Systemic Costs Dangers of Deep Engagement 1. Entrapment - Fight war on behalf of ally 2. Temptation - Intervention is tempting Benefits of Deep Engagement 1. Economic Benefits 2. Emergence of more dangerous global environment 3. Nuclear Proliferation 4. Deters other countries from fighting wars 5. Institutional Benefits Obama's Grand Strategy Obamas Grand Strategies 1. Multilateralism A. Act with allies and international institutions 2. Counterpunching A. US only respond when challenged
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'