A Grand Strategy for America (Cornell Studies in Security Affairs)

No Exit Haas, Mark L.: Divided Union Wark, Wesley K.: The Nixon Administration and the Making of U. Twilight of the Titans Cassaniti, Julia L.: Remembering the Present Miller, Nicholas L.: Stopping the Bomb Butt, Ahsan I.: Secession and Security Krebs, Ronald R.: Rebel Power Insider Threats Ed. Unclear Physics Ripsman, Norrin M.: In the Hegemon's Shadow Long, Austin: The Soul of Armies Hemmer, Christopher: American Pendulum Schuessler, John M.: Deceit on the Road to War Recchia, Stefano: Reassuring the Reluctant Warriors Talmadge, Caitlin: Modern Hatreds Rapport, Aaron: Barriers to Bioweapons China's Ascent Ed.

Diplomacy's Value Smith, Frank: American Biodefense Weeks, Jessica L. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. The United States today is the most powerful nation in the world, perhaps even stronger than Rome was during its heyday.

• Navigation menu.
• Body Contouring Following Bariatric Surgery and Massive Weight Loss: Post-Bariatric Body Contouring.
• Laundromat Coin Operated Service Business Plan 2nd Edition 2018-2019.
• Journey to Third Heart.

It is likely to remain the world's preeminent power for at least several decades to come. What behavior is appropriate for such a powerful state? To answer this question, Robert J. Art concentrates on "grand strategy"--the deployment of military power in The United States today is the most powerful nation in the world, perhaps even stronger than Rome was during its heyday.

Art concentrates on "grand strategy"--the deployment of military power in both peace and war to support foreign policy goals. He first defines America's contemporary national interests and the specific threats they face, then identifies seven grand strategies that the United States might contemplate, examining each in relation to America's interests.

Art makes a strong case for selective engagement as the most desirable strategy for contemporary America. It is the one that seeks to forestall dangers, not simply react to them; that is politically viable, at home and abroad; and that protects all U. Art concludes that "selective engagement is not a strategy for all times, but it is the best grand strategy for these times.

Paperback , pages. Published November 18th by Cornell University Press first published Cornell Studies in Security Affairs. Arthur Ross Book Award Nominee To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about A Grand Strategy for America , please sign up. Be the first to ask a question about A Grand Strategy for America.

Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Starting completely from scratch, Art lays out perhaps in somewhat too much detail a sensible and essentially parsimonious plan for the future. Dec 21, Ietrio rated it did not like it Shelves: An academic bureaucrat laying down the same structure he was given when he was a boy. Most of the reasoning comes from authority: Henry rated it liked it Aug 12, Dan O'Meara rated it it was ok Jan 24, Skylar rated it liked it Jan 14, Grand strategy or high strategy comprises the "purposeful employment of all instruments of power available to a security community".

With considerable overlap with foreign policy , grand strategy focuses primarily on the military implications of policy. A country's political leadership typically directs grand strategy with input from the most senior military officials. Development of a nation's grand strategy may extend across many years or even multiple generations. The concept of grand strategy has been extended to describe multi-tiered strategies in general, including strategic thinking at the level of corporations and political parties.

In business , a grand strategy is a general term for a broad statement of strategic action. A grand strategy states the means that will be used to achieve long-term objectives. Examples of business grand strategies that can be customized for a specific firm include: In defining Grand Strategy, military historian B.

Grand strategy should both calculate and develop the economic resources and man-power of nations in order to sustain the fighting services. Also the moral resources — for to foster the people's willing spirit is often as important as to possess the more concrete forms of power. Grand strategy, too, should regulate the distribution of power between the several services, and between the services and industry. Moreover, fighting power is but one of the instruments of grand strategy — which should take account of and apply the power of financial pressure, and, not least of ethical pressure, to weaken the opponent's will.

Furthermore, while the horizons of strategy is bounded by the war, grand strategy looks beyond the war to the subsequent peace. It should not only combine the various instruments, but so regulate their use as to avoid damage to the future state of peace — for its security and prosperity.

Grand strategy expands on the traditional idea of strategy in three ways: One of the earlier writings on grand strategy comes from Thucydides 's History of the Peloponnesian War , an account of the war between the Peloponnesian League led by Sparta and the Delian League led by Athens. From the era of Hadrian, Roman emperors employed a military strategy of "preclusive security—the establishment of a linear barrier of perimeter defence around the Empire. The Legions were stationed in great fortresses" [5].

These " fortresses " existed along the perimeter of the Empire, often accompanied by actual walls for example, Hadrian's Wall. Due to the perceived impenetrability of these perimeter defenses, the Emperors kept no central reserve army. The Roman system of roads allowed for soldiers to move from one frontier to another for the purpose of reinforcements during a siege with relative ease. These roads also allowed for a logistical advantage for Rome over her enemies, as supplies could be moved just as easily across the Roman road system as soldiers.

This way, if the legions could not win a battle through military combat skill or superior numbers, they could simply outlast the invaders, who, as historian E. Thompson wrote, "Did not think in terms of millions of bushels of wheat. Emperor Constantine moved the legions from the frontiers to one consolidated roving army as a way to save money and to protect wealthier citizens within the cities. However, this grand strategy would have costly effects of the Roman empire by weakening its frontier defenses and allowing it to be susceptible to outside armies coming in.

Also, people who lived near the Roman frontiers would begin to look to the barbarians for protection after the Roman armies departed. He thus deprived of help the people who were harassed by the barbarians and burdened tranquil cities with the pest of the military, so that several straightway were deserted. Moreover, he softened the soldiers who treated themselves to shows and luxuries. Indeed, to speak plainly, he personally planted the first seeds of our present devastated state of affairs — Zosimus , 5th-century CE historian [ citation needed ].

An example of modern grand strategy is the decision of the Allies in World War II to concentrate on the defeat of Germany first. The decision, a joint agreement made after the attack on Pearl Harbor had drawn the US into the war, was a sensible one in that Germany was the most powerful member of the Axis, and directly threatened the existence of the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union.

Conversely, while Japan's conquests garnered considerable public attention, they were mostly in colonial areas deemed less essential by planners and policy-makers.

The specifics of Allied military strategy in the Pacific War were therefore shaped by the lesser resources made available to the theatre commanders. The conversation around grand strategy in the United States has evolved significantly since the country's founding, with the nation shifting from a strategy of continental expansion, isolation from European conflicts, and opposition to European empires in the Western hemisphere in its first century, [8] to a major debate about the acquisition of an empire in the s culminating in the conquest of the Philippines and Cuba during the Spanish—American War , [9] followed by rapid shifts between offshore balancing, liberal internationalism, and isolationism around the world wars.

The Cold War saw increasing use of deep, onshore engagement strategies including the creation of a number of permanent alliances, significant involvement in other states' internal politics, [10] and a major counterinsurgency war in Vietnam. With the end of the Cold War, an early strategic debate eventually coalesced into a strategy of primacy, culminating in the invasion of Iraq in The aftershocks of this war, along with an economic downturn, rising national debt, and deepening political gridlock, have led to a renewed strategic debate, centered on two major schools of thought: A return to offshore balancing has also been proposed by prominent political scientists Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer.

A major debate emerged about the future direction of U. Grand Strategy," Barry R.

See a Problem?

Posen and Andrew L. Ross identified four major grand strategic alternatives in the debate: Stemming from a defensive realist understanding of international politics, what the authors call "neo-isolationism" advocates the United States remove itself from active participation in international politics in order to maintain its national security.

• Cornell Studies in Security Affairs!
• Un beso a oscuras (Spanish Edition)?
• A Grand Strategy for America by Robert J. Art!
• Chelsea : Nude Girl Next Door (Nude Girls Next Door Book 5);
• Tracks?
• Also of interest?

It holds that because there are no threats to the American homeland, the United States does not need to intervene abroad. Stressing a particular understanding of nuclear weapons, the authors describe how proponents believe the destructive power of nuclear weapons and retaliatory potential of the United States assure the political sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United States, while the proliferation of such weapons to countries like Britain, France, China and Russia prevents the emergence of any competing hegemon on the Eurasian landmass.

In more practical terms, the authors discuss how the implementation of a so-called "neo-isolationist" grand strategy would involve less focus on the issue of nuclear proliferation, withdrawal from NATO, and major cuts to the United States military presence abroad. The authors see a military force structure that prioritizes a secure nuclear second-strike capability, intelligence, naval and special operations forces while limiting the forward-deployment of forces to Europe and Asia.

With similar roots in the realist tradition of international relations, selective engagement advocates that the United States should intervene in regions of the world only if they directly affect its security and prosperity. The focus, therefore, lies on those powers with significant industrial and military potential and the prevention of war amongst those states. Europe and Asia contain the great powers, which have the greatest military and economic impact on international politics, and the Middle East is a primary source of oil for much of the developed world.

In addition to these more particular concerns, selective engagement also focuses on preventing nuclear proliferation and any conflict that could lead to a great power war, but provides no clear guidelines for humanitarian interventions.