Research Question: How has the United States’ strategy-making process evolved from its Cold War ideology to combating the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) in preparation for the next possible conflict with a near-peer advisory?
Purpose Statement
Before the collapse of the United Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) in 1991, the United State’s strategy during the Cold War era had been one of deterrence to the potential threats of the USSR and its allies within the Warsaw Pact. September 11, 2001, marked a drastic change in the scheme for the United States as it began to address its vulnerability in facing the GWOT. As the United States ends its 20-year war in Afghanistan, we will examine the United States National Security Plan framework and its approach to imposing that policy within an emerging peer-to-peer multi-domain environment. We will view the different elements and variables that constitute a Grand blueprint and explore other documents that articulate the ends, ways, and means produced from this Grand Strategy. Then study how these documents shape the military-methodology campaign plan based upon the geographic theater of operations.
Hypothesis
The elements and variables that make up a nation’s grand strategy, the documents produced from the initiative, demonstrate how the scheme for the U.S. has evolved from its Cold War ideology to combating the Global War on Terrorism. We see through the framework of the National Security Plan that the United States has addressed its current progress toward the future of securing national and international interests in a multi-domain environment in preparation for the next possible conflict with a near-peer advisory.
Literature Review
Introduction
In the past 20 years, the United States has formulated a system for combating the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). Over the decade, the American government focused on Cold War and the imminent threats posed by Russia with the allies from the Warsaw Pact. In this case, the literature review focuses on the dynamic definitions of Grand Strategy and explores the program concept and the Geo-combatant commands area of operations. The literature further establishes the comparative frameworks on alleviating security issues while determining the apparent U.S. approach.
Grand Strategy
Definitions
Understanding the definition of Grand Strategy is an essential factor that fosters prominent insight into the security intention of the U.S. government. The establishment of a scheme means the presence of enemies and the interest of a particular power approach. According to Platias and Koliopoulos (2010), Thucydides focused on interpreting the mainframe under distinctive elements. In this case, the primary role of the blueprint encapsulated the diplomatic, demographic, economic, military, and psychological overview of the ideology. The researchers postulate that Thucydides in-depth focuses on the perspective as a broad spectrum without relying on the military and the acquisition of power.
War is a necessary concept under different scenarios cause of the attainment of power and balance. Clausewitz stipulates that a grand strategy is a map of a battle to overwhelm and subdue the counterpart. In this case, the philosopher focuses on a particular state of the framework under the military mainframe. It is crucial to establish a firm decision regarding the adoptive initiative to win and protect the territories. During the Cold War, the U.S. focused on alleviating the influential aspect of communism among its affiliate nations. The clarity of wrangles amplifies the soldiers’ understanding of the main priority during the encounters. After 9/11 terrorism, the American government implemented dynamic policies, including Homeland Security, to augment the attainment of the main objective. In a different spectrum, Yager (2008) depicts that the tactic involves directional power control that enhances the achievement of certain objectives. Primarily, the author focuses on the paradigm shift of dominance between the different parties. Contest emerges once there is a variance of the intentions among the participants, and the core baseline encompasses indicating the aptitude.
Composition
The Framework of a Grand Strategy
Different researchers establish distinct overviews regarding the framework of a grand strategy. In a study by Yager, the author establishes four components: ends, ways, means, and risk. Ends refer to the key objectives in a war as the reflection of national interests. Winning the battle means accomplishing the core initiatives from the spectral view of the involved leaders and the political influence. Ways is another component that fosters the aspect of resource utilization to achieve the initiative during the encounters. In this case, the researcher argues that the phenomenon renders the insight based on the next step of the process, such as a consequence for overwhelming a particular realm. Means is the definition of the dynamic utilities used during the exercise, mainly weaponry and the number of soldiers in combat. The reserves, either intangible or tangible, facilitate the operations’ effectiveness and include certain variables such as intellect, equipment, and money. The last component of grand strategy enshrines the articulation of risk indicating the gap between the set goals and the available assortments. It is the key ideology that drives the development of a plan for the practice.
Elements of a Grand Strategy
A grand strategy is a multidimensional phenomenon that enshrines the interplay of distinct variables. The different elements of the conceptual framework involve movement and surprise. The two components significantly contribute to the tactical handling of the major challenge. On the one hand, motion renders amazement to the enemies during combat hence emerging as a proactive initiative. On the other hand, the calculated psychological approach nurtures the overwhelming influence on the opponents. The main purpose of war involves demonstrating the authoritarian and dominant state of a certain philosophy. Therefore, Hart establishes the dynamic essentials as contributory insights to the foundation of an effective system.
Different Levels of Strategy
National Strategy
Grand strategy is an essential factor for the American government in combating terrorism that evolved along the gradient of power dynamics and is distinct from Cold War intentions. There are variate levels of the initiative based on the vertical dimension. The first phase of conflict entails the national spectrum that the administration and incorporates a map outlining the main entities to facilitate the acquisition of a component that spans the interests of the citizens.
Military Strategy
The second recline of the battle entails a military scale that encapsulates a plan for the movement and surprise by the soldiers during the tactical approach. It is crucial to establish the integral aspect of tackling the opponents’ intentions to attain power forcefully. In this advance, the blueprint indicates a profound insight into compellence and deterrence. Researchers establish that the mechanism supports a broader and more intense effect on the national program.
Campaign Plan Strategy
The campaign plan scheme fosters the prominent, influential value of the operations among the commandants and the institutional leaders to establish the inherent accrual outcome. There is an interdependent relationship amidst the definite stages of the methodology.
Documents produced during the Grand Strategy
U.S National Security Strategy
The grand strategy demands the national security plan policy presentation that fulfills the legal framework established in 1986 by the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act. In this case, the plan indicates the objectives of the government in promoting the safety of the citizens. Therefore, different administrations present a dynamic mainframe articulating the key goals of intensifying and investing in ideological resources. It is crucial to indicate the impartial ambition among the leaders on nationalism and independence.
Joint Strategic Campaign Plan
The campaign plan focuses on the initiatives posed by the military commandants regarding the advisory perspective offered to the Secretary of Defense. The framework plays a proficient role in the indication by the chairman about the major outcomes and opportunities of the grand strategy. Primarily, the mainframe enshrines an indication of the core element of interpreting and establishing the roadmap in the implementation of the objectives by the administration. It is the responsibility of the representatives of the armed forces to provide practical and timely details that attribute the decision-making amidst the executive team of the American government.
National Defense Strategy
The national defense strategy of the American territories engulfs the restoration of America’s glory in socio-economic and security frameworks locally and globally. The initiative fosters the alleviation of China and Russia’s influential aspect into the country’s adeptness and the alteration in the balance of propensity. America, China, and Russia emerge as major political dynasties internationally. However, the individual parties indicate that the prominent goal encapsulates leveraging proficient opportunities from other republicans. Therefore, the key outline engulfs protecting the sovereignty of the current order through such initiatives as United Nations.
National Military Strategy
The main goal of the national military strategy involves articulating the main approaches to incorporate towards accomplishing the interests of the citizens and the U.S. government. The main outlier is attaining the three composite elements within the mainframe, including war fighting, deterrence, and peaceful engagements. Ideally, the institution participates in dynamic activities within the country to boost socio-economic growth and development. As a result, the professionals focus on promoting truce while protecting citizens from foreign enemies.
Geo-Combatant Command Theater Strategy
The main aim of the geographic combatant command theater strategy involves the protocol and the necessary measures for the regional military during a crisis. It is important to strengthen the borderline and internal state of a nation by integrating security initiatives. America is a country that faces imminent threats from competitors due to its harboring of nuclear weapons and crucial technological equipment. As a result, the administration intensified the relations with neighboring regions leading to the development of such commands as the Pacific, Caribbean, Alaskan, European, Far East, and Northeast. The overviews foster clarity toward the attainment of the core unprejudiced spectrum.
Cold War and its Effect on the U.S
Cold War- 1985-1991
Communism significantly affected the U.S. economic growth and development because of the interplay of dynamic values. As a capitalist, the American government faced a profound problem after World War II due to the demand for labor and resources to reconstruct the socioeconomic system. However, other nations utilized bolshevism to establish the efficient rebuilding of the structures despite gender and ethnic disparity. It is contrary to America’s philosophy on private ownership of factors of production alleviating the inherent challenges of dependence and poverty. After the combat, tension intensified between the U.S. and Russia due to the distinct economic frameworks. It is an initiative that attributed the emergence of the Vietnam conflict and other South American nations to the American administration adopting Russia’s perspective. In the short run, socialism was a necessity to improve unity and cooperation among the residents. Nevertheless, in the long run, it was a threat to the enterprise profitability of a state. As a result, the American government focused on enhancing a proficient influential value across a broader scope of the global realms, elevating commercialism.
GWOT-2001-2021
After the 9/11 terrorist attack that led to a significant loss of lives and destruction of property in America’s New York City, the government implemented proficient policies. One of the initiatives involved the establishment of Homeland Security, which deals with terror attacks and the apprehension of suspects while determining potential threats. The approach rendered profound transparency and the assignment of responsibilities and accountability among the officials for effective performance. The global war on terrorism reflects the plan developed after the tragic assault that further intensified the mandates of the military commandants on daily status reports with a well-defined protocol to handle various situations.
Current U.S Strategy and LSCO/MDO
The current U.S. strategy is a structure that involves the interplay of distinct elements to boost performance in large-scale combat operations (LSCO) and multi-domain operations (MDO). The main variables attributing to the effectiveness of the National Security Outline 2021 in combating terrorism encapsulate leadership development, significant reforms, readiness, and modernization concept (U.S Army, 2021). The system nurtures the relevant stakeholders toward the sustenance of the efficient flow of operations and commandant controls from the various entities. The U.S. plan is against the near-peer threat cause of the effect of multilateral and bilateral effects from China and Russia. The phenomenon leads to the efficient intersectionality of the LSCO and MDO mainframes on battle fronts.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we have discussed the grand strategy, the documents produced, and how the strategy for the U.S. has evolved from its Cold War ideology to combating the Global War on Terrorism. We have also discussed the current progress towards securing the national and international interests of the United States in the current multi-domain environment as it prepares for the next possible conflict with a near-peer advisory.
Bibliography:
Bartholomees, J. Boone, ed. U.S. Army War College Guide to national security issues: National security policy and strategy. Vol. 2. Defense Department, 2012.
Brands, Hal, Peter Feaver, and Dana H. Allin. “U.S. strategy after ISIS.” (2017).
Colucci, Lamont. “American doctrine: the foundation of grand strategy.”World Affairs 181, no. 2 (2018): 133-160.
Da Silva, Joseph, Hugh Liebert, and Isaiah Wilson III. American grand strategy and the future of U.S. landpower. Army War College Carlisle Barracks PA Strategic Studies Institute, 2014.
Hart, Liddell. The theory of strategy. (n.d).
Hooker Jr, R. D. The grand strategy of the United States. NATIONAL defense univ fort mcnair dc inst for national strategic studies, 2014.
Platias, Athanassios G., and Constantinos Koliopoulos. “Grand strategy: A framework for analysis in Thucydides on strategy.” (2010).
U.S Army. Sustainment modernization: Posture for Multi-Domain Operations capable force in 2028. (2021).
Yarger, H. Richard. “Toward a theory of strategy: Art Lykke and the U.S. Army War College strategy model.” U.S. Army War College guide to national security issues 1 (2008): 44-47. Web.