I found Andrew Latham’s post at The Hill considering the U. S.’s next grand strategy pretty interesting:
The five competitors he discuses are:
- liberal internationalism
- deep engagement
- strategic competition
- restraint
- “progressive†grand strategy
That last candidate emphasizes “environmental justice, countering authoritarianism and in general addressing the world’s social ills”,
Unlike in most of the rest of the world U. S. grand strategy is not a coherent policy as such but an emergent phenomenon composed of the competing interests of different factions of Americans. Consequently, try as they might I doubt that any interested party will succeed in making their own preferences dominate. It is likely to be some not particularly coherent combination of those grand strategies, I suspect some combination of liberal internationalism and strategic competition with lip service paid to the interests of progressive grand strategy. My own preference would be restraint which I doubt will gain much traction.
