[eDebate] "Grand Strategy" definitions

J T jtedebate
Tue Dec 23 10:52:46 CST 2008


Google...in five minutes or less....





http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/boyd_grand_strategy.htm

?

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/fareed_zakaria/2008/12/wanted_a_new_grand_strategy_1.html

?

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86406/charles-a-kupchan-peter-l-trubowitz/grand-strategy-for-a-divided-america.html

?

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/01/schwarzlayne.htm

?

http://uc.princeton.edu/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3775

?

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/01/schwarzlayne.htma

?

??Towards a Grand
Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership,?
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/events/080110_grand_strategy.pdf, 2007

?

General (ret.) Dr. Klaus Naumann, KBE, Former Chief of the
Defence Staff Germany

Former Chairman Military Committee NATO

General (ret.) John Shalikashvili, Former Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States of America & Former NATO Supreme
Allied Commander in Europe

Field Marshal The Lord Inge, KG, GCB, PC, Former Chief of
the Defence Staff United
  Kingdom

Admiral (ret.) Jacques Lanxade, Former Chief of the Defence
Staff France, Former Ambassador

General (ret.) Henk van den Breemen, Former Chief of the
Defence Staff the Netherlands


?

?

?

American Grand Strategy After 9/11: An Assessment

April 01, 2005

Dr. Stephen D. Biddle.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?PubID=603

?

?Grand strategy? integrates military, political, and
economic means to pursue states? ultimate objectives in the international
system. American grand strategy had been in a state of flux prior to 2001, as
containment of the Soviet Union gave way to a
wider range of apparently lesser challenges. The 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon
and the World Trade towers, however, transformed the grand strategy debate and
led to a sweeping reevaluation of American security policy. It may still be too
early to expect this reevaluation to have produced a complete or final response
to 9/11?policies as complex as national grand strategy do not change overnight.
But after 3 years of sustained debate and adaptation, it is reasonable to ask what
this process has produced so far, and how well the results to date serve
American interests.

The author argues that, heretofore, the grand strategic
response to 9/11 has combined ambitious public statements with vague
particulars as to the scope of the threat and the end state to be sought. This
combination of ambition and ambiguity creates important but unresolved tensions
in American strategy. If the costs are low enough, these tensions are
tolerable: the United States
can avoid making hard choices and instead pursue ill-defined

goals with limited penalties. But the higher the cost, the
harder this becomes. And the costs are rising rapidly with the ongoing
insurgency in Iraq.
Eventually something will have to give?the ambiguity in today?s grand strategy
is fast becoming intolerable.

There are two broad alternatives for resolving these
ambiguities and creating a coherent strategy: rollback and containment.
Rollback would retain the ambitious goals implicit in today?s declaratory
policy and accept the cost and near-term risk inherent in pursuing them. These
costs include a redoubled commitment to nation building in Iraq and elsewhere, accelerated
onset of great power competition, heightened incentives for proliferation, and
hence an increased risk of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) use by terrorists
in the near term. But in exchange, it offers the mid-term possibility of
rolling the terrorist threat, and hence the ultimate danger of WMD use, back to
a level below the severity of September 10, 2001. By contrast, containment
would settle for more modest goals in exchange for lower costs and lower
near-term risks. In particular, it would permit America
to withdraw from nation building in the Mideast,
it would slow the onset of great power competition, and it would moderate the risk
of near-term WMD terrorism. But this retrenchment would leave the underlying
causes of Islamist terror unassailed, and would therefore accept a persistent
risk of major terrorist attack for the indefinite future. And it could never
eliminate entirely the risk of those terrorists acquiring

WMD; though it might reduce the probability per unit time,
by extending the duration of the conflict indefinitely it could ultimately
increase, not decrease, the odds of WMD use on American soil in the longer
term.

?

?

?

?

The Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy, International
Security Studies, Yale University November 5, 2008 http://www.yale.edu/iss/gs/

?

We define ?grand strategy? as a comprehensive plan of
action, based on the calculated relationship of means to large ends. Never an
exact science, grand strategy requires constant reassessment and adjustment.
Flexibility is key. Traditionally believed to belong to and best-developed in
the politico-military and governmental realms, the concept of grand strategy
applies?and ISS believes is essential?to a broad spectrum of human activities,
not least those of international institutions, non-governmental organizations,
and private businesses and corporations.

?

?

Planning Skills, 2008

http://planningskills.com/glossary/38.php

Grand Strategy

?

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.



In a government context, Paul Kennedy defines grand strategy as "the
capacity of the nation's leaders to bring together all of the elements [of
power], both military and nonmilitary, for the preservation and enhancement of
the nation's long-term (that is, in wartime and peacetime) best
interests." From this perspective, grand strategy requires the
articulation of both policy goals and interim objectives, as well as a broad
definition of power that extends beyond the use of the military forces. 



Military strategist B. H. Liddell-Hart defined grand strategy as a plan
"to co-ordinate and direct all the resources of [an organization] towards
the attainment of ... [a] goal defined by fundamental policy." 

?

?

Cites:? Kennedy, P.,
Grand Strategies in War and Peace, 1991, also Profs. K.C. Johnson and S. P.
Remy, CUNY.



Liddell-Hart, B.H., "Fundamentals of Strategy and Grand Strategy,"
Strategy, 1967, p. 322. Check Chris Wells at
http://www.yale.edu/iss/Grand-Strategy-Bureaucracy-Wells.pdf

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?





W. James Taylor ("JT")



Asst. Debate Coach

Emporia State University



***Nothing in this email should be taken to represent Emporia State Debate or Emporia State University.  The contents are the sole opinion of the author.


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081223/94366871/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list