Search

Begin New Search Topic Military Intervention Political Geography North America

21. 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

22. Reckless Endangerment: President Trump and the Use of Military Force

Author:
Peter Juul and Ken Gude
Publication Date:
05-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
During his first 100 days in office, it has become clear that President Donald Trump views military force as his primary—if not only—foreign policy tool. From a botched special operations raid in Yemen to a cruise missile strike against an Assad-regime airfield in Syria, Trump has proven more than willing to order America’s armed forces into action. Moreover, his administration’s proposed “hard-power budget” cuts U.S. State Department funding by more than one-quarter to help pay for a $54 billion increase in military spending.1 President Trump’s reliance on military force at the literal expense of America’s other foreign policy tools is bad policy. No U.S. foreign policy failure this century has been due to insufficient military power. Having chosen to buy more ammunition rather than fully fund the Department of State—something his own secretary of defense, James Mattis, advised against when he served as the commander of American forces in the Middle East—Trump is painting America into a dangerous corner.2 In crisis situations, he will be faced with a stark choice between using military force or backing down.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Military Intervention, and Conflict
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

23. No, But Yes. Military Intervention in the New Era: Implications for the Canadian Armed Forces

Author:
Bernd Horn
Publication Date:
03-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
The current complexity, ambiguity and chaos in the contemporary operating environment creates, for most national governments and their militaries, difficulty in adequately understanding, coping and responding to the myriad of security concerns. The challenge is normally one of scope and viable options. Canada is no different. Both the Government and the Canadian public are war-weary from over a decade of savage insurgency in Afghanistan. Further, the dire international economic situation has necessitated fiscal austerity measures that have had a significant impact on the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). As a result, the Government is reluctant, if not downright opposed, to any form of military intervention that may lead to becoming embroiled in another long drawn-out conflict with ground forces that will create a drain on national blood and treasure. Therefore, there is a tendency to say “No” to military intervention. Yet, for the government to maintain its status and influence with Allies, friends and global partners, it cannot be so naïve. It must do its share of “heavy lifting” with regard to ensuring world stability and security. As such, this article examines the necessity for the CAF, which will find itself squeezed by the fiscal necessity of the times, to simultaneously deliver relevant, strategic expeditionary capabilities that can quickly deploy and that will allow the Canadian government to maintain its credibility as a reliable ally and global partner.
Topic:
Insurgency, Armed Forces, Military Affairs, and Military Intervention
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Canada, and North America

24. Trends in the International Community’s War on IS

Author:
Al Jazeera Center for Studies
Publication Date:
10-2014
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Al Jazeera Center for Studies
Abstract:
A combination of several factors has driven the United States to launch military operations against the Islamic State (IS) organisation. Perhaps the most important of these are the imminent danger to Erbil and Baghdad, the worsening humanitarian situation, Iran’s strategic role regarding the military position of the governments in both Baghdad and Erbil, and the pressure on the Obama administration exercised by the Washington political community. IS’ beheading of American hostages in response to the initial American intervention has reinforced the US military response option. However, there is political uncertainty and considerable suspicion regarding the overall goals of the war, impacting Muslim public opinion in Syria, Iraq and neighbouring countries, including Saudi Arabia. On the one hand, it is difficult to undertake wide-ranging aerial bombardment (as is currently occurring in Syria and Iraq) without making deadly mistakes against civilians, and even military allies. On the other hand, scepticism is fuelled by the lack of clarity regarding America’s objectives, and whether this war is only against IS and whether it includes other organizations that Washington labels as radical, such as the al-Nusra Front and the Ahrar al-Sham Movement. This ambiguity about the war’s objectives, together with the persistence of the Syrian regime and its probable entrenchment as a result of the war, makes regional participation in the war more difficult, despite US promises to train and help what the Americans call “moderate” Free Syrian Army (FSA) fighters.
Topic:
Arab Countries, Islamic State, Military Intervention, and Conflict
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

25. Debating US Interests in Syria's Civil War

Author:
Brian Haggerty
Publication Date:
09-2013
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
In the aftermath of a chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21, President Obama's threat to launch a limited cruise missile strike to "deter and degrade" Syrian President Bashar al-Asad's chemical weapons capability has once again thrust U.S. Syria policy to the forefront of national debate.
Topic:
Civil War, Military Strategy, Hegemony, and Military Intervention
Political Geography:
Middle East, Syria, North America, and United States of America