Grand strategy

Warfare Military history
Eras Prehistoric Ancient Medieval Gunpowder Industrial Modern Battlespace Air Information Land Sea Space Weapons Armor Artillery Biological Cavalry Chemical Electronic Infantry Nuclear Psychological Tactics Attrition warfare Guerrilla warfare Maneuver warfare Siege Total war Trench warfare Conventional warfare Unconventional warfare Asymmetric warfare Counter-insurgency Network-centric warfare AirLand Battle Cold war Proxy war Strategy Economic Grand Operational Organization Ranks Command and control Staff Intelligence Education and training Logistics Technology and equipment Materiel Supply chain management Military engineering Lists Battles Commanders Operations Sieges Wars War crimes Weapons Writers
Portal

Grand strategy comprises the "purposeful employment of all instruments of power available to a security community".^[1] Military historian B. H. Liddell Hart says about grand strategy:

[T]he role of grand strategy – higher strategy – is to co-ordinate and direct all the resources of a nation, or band of nations, towards the attainment of the political object of the war – the goal defined by fundamental policy.

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.^[2]

Issues of grand strategy typically include the choice of primary versus secondary theaters in war, distribution of resources among the various services, the general types of armaments manufacturing to favor, and which international alliances best suit national goals. Grand strategy has considerable overlap with foreign policy, but grand strategy focuses primarily on the military implications of policy, and is typically directed by the political leadership of a country, with input from the most senior military officials. The development of a nation's grand strategy may extend across many years or even multiple generations.

Some have extended the concept of grand strategy 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: concentration, market development, product development, innovation, horizontal integration, divestiture, and liquidation.

Contents 1 Historical examples 2 Types of current U.S. Grand Strategy 2.1 Neo-Isolationism 2.2 Selective Engagement 2.3 Cooperative Security 2.4 Primacy 3 See also 4 References 4.1 Notes 4.2 Further reading 5 External Links

Historical examples

• Roman Grand Strategy

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"(Arther Ferrill, The Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation

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.A. 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. "Constantine abolished this frontier security by removing the greater part of the soldiery from the frontiers to cities that needed no auxiliary forces. 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)

• Anglo-Zulu War

King Cetshwayo of the Zulu Kingdom adopted a strategy of attacking the encamped British Army at the Battle of Isandlwana in 1879; this would ensure the British would take a more aggressive approach to the invasion in the future, leading to the eventual British triumph at the Battle of Ulundi.

• World War II

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 (1941) 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 policymakers. The specifics of Allied military strategy in the Pacific War were therefore shaped by the lesser resources made available to the theatre commanders.

• Cold War

A more recent example of grand strategy was the policy of containment used by the US and the UK during the Cold War.

Types of current U.S. Grand Strategy

Barry R. Posen and Andrew L. Ross in their paper "Competing Visions for U.S. Grand Strategy," outline four major grand strategies applicable to U.S. foreign policy: neo-isolationism, selective engagement, cooperative security and primacy.^[3]

Neo-Isolationism

Neo-Isolationism advocates the United States remove itself from international politics in order to maintain its national security. It holds that because there are no threats to the American homeland, the United States does not need to intervene abroad. Even further, its proponents argue that "the United States is not responsible for, and cannot afford the costs of, maintaining world order."^[4] They also believe that "the pursuit of economic well-being is best left to the private sector," and that the United States should not attempt to spread its values because doing so increases resentment towards the U.S. and in turn, decreases its security.^[4] In short, neo-isolationism advises the United States to preserve its freedom of action and strategic independence.^[4]

Selective Engagement

Selective engagement advocates that the United States should only intervene in regions of the world that directly affect its security and prosperity. Most proponents of this strategy believe Europe, Asia and the Middle East matter most to the United 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 conflict, but provides no clear guidelines for humanitarian interventions.

Cooperative Security

Cooperative security advocates that the United States participate in, and perhaps lead, alliances and international organizations in order to reach its national security goals. In other words, its proponents believe that the U.S. should act multilaterally in the pursuit of its interests. They propose that collective action is the most effective means of preventing potential state and non-state aggressors from threatening other states. Cooperative security considers nuclear proliferation, regional conflicts and humanitarian crises to be major interests of the United States.

Primacy

'Primacy holds that only a preponderance of U.S. power ensures peace.'^[5] As a result, it advocates that the United States pursue ultimate hegemony and dominate the international system economically, politically and militarily. Therefore, its proponents argue that U.S. foreign policy should focus on maintaining U.S. power and preventing any other power from becoming a serious challenger to the United States. With this in mind, some supporters of this strategy argue that the U.S. should work to contain China and other competitors rather than engage them. In regards to humanitarian crises and regional conflicts, primacy holds that the U.S. should only intervene when they directly impact national security. It does, however, advocate for the prevention of nuclear proliferation.

See also

• Strategy
• Military strategy
• Naval strategy
• Operational mobility
• Military doctrine
• Principles of War
• Military tactics
• Grand strategy wargame
• Simulation
• Strategic and Defence Studies Centre
• Wargaming
• Total war

References

Notes

Further reading

• Robert J. Art, A Grand Strategy for America (Cornell)
• Biddle, Stephen. American Grand Strategy After 9/11: An Assessment. 50pp. April 2005
• Clausewitz, Carl von. On War
• Fuller, J.F.C.. The Generalship of Alexander the Great
• Benjamin Isaac. The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992 (2nd rev. ed.)
• Kolliopoulos. Grand strategy of ancient Sparta. Piotita Publications.
• Kondilis, P. Theory of War
• Kondilis, P. Power and decision
• Liddell Hart, B. H. Strategy. London:Faber, 1967 (2nd rev. ed.)
• Luttwak. The Grand strategy of the Roman Empire
• Papasotiriou, Harry. Grand strategy of the Byzantine Empire
• Platias, A. International Relations and Grand Strategy in Thucydides
• Wright, Steven. The United States and Persian Gulf Security: The Foundations of the War on Terror, Ithaca Press, 2007 ISBN 978-0863723216

External Links

Elephrame | Grand Strategy (Opinions on Grand Strategy)