How to Last Alone at the Top: US Strategic Planning for the Unipolar Era (original) (raw)
Related papers
The United States military is currently viewed not only as the most formidable and well-equipped armed force in the world, but one with a complex political role as well. The union of political and military responsibilities in light of U.S. security might seem obvious given recent events such as the Persian Gulf War, the Somalia operation and the restoration to power of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti. However, the embodiment of a highly skilled military within a carefully designed, politically flexible security framework is a comparatively new development in the U.S. The road to this accomplishment was long and difficult, and included thoroughgoing reform of U.S. military doctrine and security policy in the 1970s and 80s. By the time change had been fully instituted in the early 1990s, the international environment was changing rapidly, and evaluation of the framework was again necessary.
JOURNAL OF THE NAVAL WAR COLLEGE, 2021
The aim of this article is to test the hypothesis that Halford Mackinder and Nicholas Spykman's geopolitical theories, which sustained the grand strategy of the United States with the implementation of 1946 Truman Doctrine, are still relevant today after their termination. The results indicate that the intellectual matrixes were found in documents of the grand strategy of the United States in two moments. First, in 1992, in the George Herbert Walker Bush's government's Defense Planning Guidance document, formulated by the Pentagon, in February 1992. Second, they were found replicated 10 years after in the first term of President George Walker Bush, inaugurated in 2001. In the latter, the theoretical formulations repercussions were depicted in the official documents Quadrennial Defense Review (2001) and the National Security Strategy (2002). The article concluded that the authors' ideas remain valid to explain and interpret the actions of the United States' grand strategy in the international scenario.
The Next U.S. Strategic Posture - And The Posture After Next (Bibliography)
2021
Beyond." The July workshop had a broader scope and looked at the different elements of U.S. strategic posture, including not just nuclear capabilities but missile defense, conventional prompt global strike, and space and cyberspace. Participants assessed the 2030 U.S. posture relative to the predicted Russian and Chinese postures, and they examined what capabilities will be crucial beyond 2030. Discussion was guided by the following key questions: • What will be the main attributes of the US strategic posture in 2030? • Relative to the predicted Russian and Chinese strategic postures of 2030, will the US position have improved, stayed the same, or eroded? Why? • What factors should guide the development of capabilities beyond 2030?
Abstract: Evaluating international political strategy includes critiquing the desired future implied in the strategy. Political strategy focuses on trend alteration regarding prevailing polity perceptions, elite composition, polity attitudes, and polity values to actualize a desired political future regarding the nature of the target of the strategy. Critical evaluation of a strategy focuses on the assumptions and capabilities underpinning this effort by the initiator state at trend alteration. US security challenges in Eurasia are legacy issues from the Cold War. The Cold War containment strategy instruments and interests originally targeting the Soviet threat that the US created and developed continue to shape the political discourse regarding security challenges in the region. Comprehension of the political values institutionalized in these bureaucratic, military, and economic vested interests is useful for understanding the political communication topography today. These vested interests embody the international political trends that set the global political framework for what is today, called globalization. The US Trump administration’s conservative populism politically compels it to maintain and intensify the post-Cold War general thrust of US foreign policy in Eurasia and the world: defense and expansion of unilateral US global hegemonic political predominance. It is manifested in the intensification of pressure against perceived challengers to US global influence. Trump’s populist rhetoric of radical change serves essentially a legitimation function to reinforce the primacy of these vested interests in the US foreign policy making process, thus intensifying this general thrust.
2015
: Since the end of World War II, the United States has made maintaining a favorable balance of power in Eurasia a core element of its national security strategy. It did so in good measure by maintaining a large conventional military force that was based not only at home, but also in bases spread across Europe and Asia. That strategy was buttressed by developing security ties and alliances with key powers and frontline states. The implicit bargain was that the United States would help keep the peace on their door front if they would provide access from which American forces could operate and, in turn, maintain credible forces themselves to reinforce and support U.S. efforts at keeping the great power peace. The question raised by this collection of essays is: Is that bargain unraveling? As the following chapters note, since the end of the great power threat posed by the Soviet Union, both the United States and its principal allies have seen fit to cut the size of their forces substan...
The Crisis of American Military Primacy and the Search for Strategic Solvency
The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters
The authors discuss the erosion of US military primacy and the corresponding dangers for American grand strategy and international security. They analyze three options for restoring strategic solvency and recommend a significant expansion of US defense resources to bring capabilities back into alignment with US global commitments.