U.S. Grand Strategy in Syria Social Sciences Essay
Does the idea/concept of Grand Strategy help explain current US policy in Syria? (as defined Congressional Research Service Report)?
Outline of Explanation:
1. Description of Grand Strategy generally and U.S. Grand Strategy in particular.
a) This should address the important points of the readings (i.e., internationalism vs domestic interests; liberal internationalism vs restraint), while citing relevant sources.
b) It should also clearly address how Grand Strategy is connected with security policies.
2. Description of current U.S. policy in Syria
a) This should summarize and discuss the 3 objectives that are defined by the current Trump administration (as per the Congressional Research Service Report).
b) This section could also note some differences between the Obama-era U.S. policy in Syria and the Trump policy (some of these differences are mentioned in the report by Elizabeth Dent)
3. Analysis of how U.S. Grand Strategy reflects current U.S. policy in Syria or not
a) Discussion of specific aspects of U.S. Grand Strategy and specific aspects of U.S. policy in Syria. In other words, how does the U.S. Grand Strategy help explain how the objectives defined by U.S. policy in Syria were set?
Format:
- Times New Roman font 12-point
- Chicago style footnotes
- Use the articles attached and feel free to include additional ones
- Write in a clear and concise style
U.S. Grand Strategy in Syria
Student Name
Course
Instructor
Date
A grand strategy is a set of ideas essential to deploying a country’s resources so as to archive its goals over the long run. According to Williamson Murray, A grand strategy involves some readiness and capacity to consider the future as far as the objectives of a political entity. Additionally, a grand strategy provides a conceptual road map and a combination of policy prescriptions. This allows state leaders to set a course for their nations away from the contemporary challenges to a desired future outcome and regulates leaders to have long term visions. Ultimately, the grand strategic vision of a state is based on its leadership, culture, history, geography ideology, socio-economic conditions, global standing and alliances. All states must make decisions and given America’s global influence and position of power, their decisions should be circumspect and logical. The first challenge is integrating core national interests into a set of narrow, prioritized and achievable objectives, reached by carefully utilizing increasingly-inhibited resources. The ends-means balance is the critical result from the national strategy planning process, but it wholly depends on a precise vision. Even the people who can come up with a risk plan may get carried away whenever they experience an unexpected crisis. However, a grand strategy addresses everyday challenges by providing a framework in which all situations can be responded to as required.[Murray, Williamson. "Thoughts On Grand Strategy". Assets.Cambridge.Org, 2020, https://assets.cambridge.org/97805217/61260/excerpt/9780521761260_excerpt.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2020.] [Stevens, Meakem, Tooze, Hirsh, and Fuchs. 2020. "America Doesn’T Need A Grand Strategy". Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/28/america-doesnt-need-a-grand-strategy-big-think-trump/. N.P] [Stevens, Meakem, Tooze, Hirsh, and Fuchs. 2020. N.P]
The current grand strategy applied by the United States involves having a broad international military presence, tremendous alliances and security responsibilities. Critics argue that abiding by this grand strategy has overstretched US and is proving disastrous to the nation. Bary Posen further claims that this Liberal Hegemony is not only costly but also wasteful and counterproductive. This is because the strategy necessitates an unnecessarily large overseas military commanded by a selfish industrial complex. An advanced military makes it easy for leaders to resort to violence when other peaceful ways of settling disputes might be available. In order to adapt to a changing world, Posen and other experts have recommended a less aggressive grand strategy that revolves around restraint. A grand strategy of restraint bridges the gap between isolationism and Hegemony by backing away from strategic commitments, maintaining a certain engagement level, and pursuing interests which are important to U.S. security. Restraint questions whether the US can keep to covering the costs of long-pursued, activist foreign policy, and its tendency to engage in military activities abroad. However, this strategy would have been appealing were it not flawed. Restraint irreparably weakens the interests of US at home and on foreign grounds. The campaign for adopting a new approach grows more vocal in the wake of the costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the rise of China and the instability of Ukraine, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen. In order to adopt a grand strategy based on restraint, the US will have to back off the agenda of global reform and focus on furthering a narrow set of interests; ensuring non-proliferation of destructive weapons, preventing the rise of another power and countering terrorism. Furthermore, the military and the international commitment will be systematically reduced.[A Grand Strategy of Restraint:. 2020. "A Grand Strategy Of Restraint:". http://cco.ndu.edu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=fqHtpX7JPGM%3D&tabid=13562&portalid=96&mid=30819.] [A Grand Strategy of Restraint:. 2020. "A Grand Strategy Of Restraint:"] [A Grand Strategy of Restraint:. 2020. "A Grand Strategy Of Restraint:"] [A Grand Strategy of Restraint:. 2020. "A Grand Strategy Of Restraint:"] [Cordesman, Anthony. "‘Peace’ In Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, And Yemen". Center For Strategic And International Studies, 2020, /analysis/peace-afghanistan-iraq-syria-libya-and-yemen.]
The Grand Strategy in Security Measures
The US grand strategy is often connected to security measures. This is because weaker nations often feel threatened by the global power and influence of the United States and seek to thwart it through the different types of weapons. The nations might use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons of mass destruction. This can be seen in the 9/11 incident. Multiple attacks with mass casualties may ultimately lead to the economic collapse and loss of trust in the United States governance structure. A comeback of Isis will not only threaten the recently liberated Iraqis and S...