Search

Begin New Search Political Geography North America Publishing Institution Security Studies

1. Beyond the Buzzword: The Three Meanings of “Grand Strategy”

Author:
Nina Silove
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Security Studies
Institution:
Security Studies
Abstract:
The questions of how to define grand strategy and whether it “exists” continue to vex the study of grand strategy, despite the ever-increasing popularity of the term. Scholars broadly agree that grand strategy refers to something that has the characteristics of being long-term in scope, related to the state's highest priorities, and concerned with all spheres of statecraft (military, diplomatic, and economic). The precise entity or phenomenon that manifests these characteristics is less clear, indicating deficiencies in the methods used by scholars—usually implicitly—to define and operationalize concepts. This article traces the intellectual history and contemporary usage of the concept of grand strategy to identify the phenomenon or object to which the concept refers. This analysis demonstrates that there is no single concept of grand strategy. Instead, there are three, which are labelled “grand plans,” “grand principles,” and “grand behavior,” respectively. Each concept provides a distinct, valuable framework for research and policy prescription.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Imperialism, Military Strategy, and Military Intervention
Political Geography:
United States and North America

2. Soldiers, Civilians, and Multilateral Humanitarian Intervention

Author:
Stefano Recchia
Publication Date:
06-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Security Studies
Institution:
Security Studies
Abstract:
Approval from the United Nations or NATO appears to have become a necessary condition for US humanitarian military intervention. Conventional explanations emphasizing the pull of legitimacy can- not fully account for this given that US policymakers vary consider- ably in their attachment to multilateralism. This article argues that America’s military leaders, who are consistently skeptical about humanitarian intervention and tend to emphasize its costs, play a central role in making multilateral approval necessary. As long as top-ranking generals express strong reservations about intervention and no clear threat to US national security exists, they can veto the use of force. In such circumstances, even heavyweight “humani- tarian hawks” among the civilian leadership, who initially may have wanted to bypass multilateral bodies to maximize US freedom of action, can be expected to recognize the need for UN or NATO approval—if only as a means of mollifying the generals by reas- suring them about the prospect of sustained multilateral burden sharing. Two case studies drawing on interviews with senior civil- ian and military officials illustrate and probe the plausibility of the argument.
Topic:
Security, NATO, Humanitarian Intervention, Multilateralism, and Civil-Military Relations
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, and North America