American Foreign Policy Question

Can anyone define what America's Grand Strategy was in the early 20th century.

In particular could you specify these three main areas and what their meaning is in regards to how America put into practice this grand strategy?

I came across this term but am having trouble understanding how it was applied to American foreign policy.

3 Types of Grand Strategy

1.Primacy

2.Liberal Internationalism

3.Offshore Balancing

reply to post by Hopechest


It would appear that nobody wants to answer your question. Here is another that begs answering. Why does it seem that our armed forces are our ambassadors when it comes to foreign policy? Okay, two questions, what does our military's presence in foreign countries have to do with national defense and who exactly are we defending over there!

reply to post by Hopechest




Ask an old military general and he'll tell you the whole point of the 20th century and 21st century is to gain imperial control of the middle east and it's assets.

Exporting democracy was the actual goal, but how to do so and the benefits in doing so are the arguable parts.

Examples of grand strategy are easily found in war. But I think your question is broader than that.

en.wikipedia.org...

~Tenth

Thanks for the video link.

It will help a lot

Originally posted by Hopechest
Can anyone define what America's Grand Strategy was in the early 20th century.

In particular could you specify these three main areas and what their meaning is in regards to how America put into practice this grand strategy?

I came across this term but am having trouble understanding how it was applied to American foreign policy.

3 Types of Grand Strategy

1.Primacy

2.Liberal Internationalism

3.Offshore Balancing

Primacy is the notion of supremacy. Not in the world domination sense, but in Francis Fukiyama's End of History sense. That is there are no other powers that can contest the main power and it becomes the center of gravity in foreign policy concerns. Such as the construction of the "Great White Fleet" to show the world that the US is not just a military power, but the military power to best.

Liberal Internationalism is the oft-cited mantra that foreign intervention is just when the aims are to enable liberalism in a foreign land. Woodrow Wilson's "world safe for democracy" speech would be the most apt example of that.

Offshore Balancing is using other nations and causes as proxy fighters for yours. Such as the US supplying arms to the White Russians to help defeat the Bolsheviks.

reply to post by GreenGlassDoor


Wow....most excellent, thanks for those definition.

That's what I was having problems understanding. What exactly is the "Grand Strategy" however. I'm still unclear about that.

reply to post by Hopechest


Grand Strategy is putting all your eggs in one basket. As the WWII example showed, the allies focused on a particular point.

At least that's my understanding

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


So in regards to foreign policy it would essentially be identifying your most important goals and using your resources to meet those objectives first and foremost I imagine?

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

So in regards to foreign policy it would essentially be identifying your most important goals and using your resources to meet those objectives first and foremost I imagine?

That seems like the most appropriate definition.

Here's an article.

www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org...

reply to post by Hopechest


World War I was probably the begining of the end for any grand strategy and primacy interests that the US had planned for in the Mid-20th Century. The advent of World War II totally erased almost every vestige of any 'Foreign Policy' the US had planned. Pretty much, World War II reshaped out planet, and the repercussions are still reverbrating in US Foriegn Policy today. There's a great book, called 'Delivered from Evil' written by a Jesuit Scholar, his name I believe is 'Andrew Liecke'. It is very instructive in two respects, the first being, the guy is a Jesuit Scholar, and that says a lot right there. The second one is, he was there. He was a U.S. Marine that went ashore at a place called Guadalcanal. You may not care too much for the Military aspects of this book, but there is a wealth of information on many of the major 'players' in WWII, Occupation, The Iron Curtain, The genesis of the cold war. Short but excellent bio's of: FDR, Truman, Stalin, Petain, Salassi, Eisenhower, King George VI, Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth , Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Lord Mountbatten, Emperor Hirohito, Tojo, Churchill, Hitler, Montgomery, Mussolini, Josep Broz, aka 'Tito', Nimitz, Yamamoto, Rommel, Eleanor Roosevelt and others. The book reveals much of the foriegn policy decisions that were made during and after WWII, and the machinations of individuals who still wanted to rule the world, after WWII had ceased. The book also covers day-to-day life in the countries of the combatants, both AXIS and ALLIES, and the 'neutrals'. This book begins with the end of WW I (the catalyst for WWII) and continues through the occupation of Europe and Japan. The book has EXCELLENT notes, and an outstanding reference section. Funny, you might think this kind of book is very dry, but there are sections that deal with individual people caught up in the maelstrom, and several of them moved me to tears. I highly recommend it. The authors personal experiences of life at war and combat viewed through the eyes of a 17 year old who lied about his age to serve his country, are particularly insightful. I hope this helps. Additionally, the author when relating experiences that were not his personally, is very 'detached' almost clinical in nature. This book is kind of haunting for me, beause it so very much details why the world is were it is today. I hope this helps. Cheers, and Be Blessed. If any other of the folks read this post, I highly recommend you check this book out. I can remember when I was young, about 6-7 years old, there was a massive power outage in the New England, and all my brothers and sisters (5 in all) sat around our kitchen table, and in the candlelight, for some reason, our parents told us of they're experiences in WWII, and what they described they're children that day, remebering the look in they're eyes, and the tears, was what two young people in love related about what they were convinced was Armeggedon. They didn't think anyone was going to come out of it alive. I probably read this book at least 20 times.

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor

 

Wow....most excellent, thanks for those definition.

That's what I was having problems understanding. What exactly is the "Grand Strategy" however. I'm still unclear about that.

A grand strategy is the overarching methods used to achieve a strategic goal. For example, the US wanted a nation that spanned from the Atlantic to the Pacific, so the grand strategy involved homesteading and the construction of a railroad.

Thank you all very much for the replies, its helped tremendously.

I will also check out that book Carbon, I'm a history and poly sci major so it will definitely be of interest to me.

Thank you again everybody.

Peace

reply to post by CarbonBase


It's Robert Leckie and he has written a few books on his war experiences. Before the war he wrote for a newspaper and wrote for AP afterwards.

The HBO miniseries "The Pacific" is a composite of his and a few other's books.

He does have a bias, though, and it will sometimes come out in his writing.

reply to post by GreenGlassDoor

Thanks for correcting me on that spelling. I wonder, who on thi splanet doesn't see the world thru some color glasses. I do know that reading that book explained a lot about why my parents didn't talk a lot about how much it 'colored' they're view of the world. A lot of what I've experienced in 53 years has most definitely colored mine, for better or worse. HAve a good one !

Here is another question if you have the time.

What was America's grand strategy in foreign policy prior to 1945?

Between the world wars?

And the early Cold War?

I'm thinking that the "grand strategy" was the way in which we approached each set of circumstances in varying ways but I'm not sure.

Did we have different approaches to foreign policy depending on those different eras? I am more familiar with how our government has acted in recent history but those 3 eras confuse me a little bit. Researching it I've found answers ranging all over the place.

It would be nice if someone could put into perspective our evolving foreign policy prior to 1945 up to and including the beginning of the Cold War.

The only thing I can say about why we are in other contries is two fold, During the Cold War we were staioned in Europe to be a deterance to the Russians, after the Iron Curtain fell, we stayed in Europe and used Europe to be a jumping of point to any region in the area in there were any situations that we need to put our nose into, Examples are Bossina, Gulf War and Somilia. Since we (US) have pre postion equipment around the world to react in 24 hours we need to be friends (foreign Policy) to maintain our interest in the Region( what ever that may be)

Give you an example of were Americans were staioned during and pre 911, Germany, Italy, England, Eygpt, Korea, Japan, Alaska, Atol Islands, Philapeans (SP) just to name a few. But since the cold war is over why are we still in Europe? Jumping off point......

Haveing been in the military for decades you ask any Soldier, they don't want war, they are the first to tell you they rather be peace makers instead of fighters.

America's foreign policy in the 20th century was mainly Colonialism/Imperialism. Exploiting countries for their material resources was a big one. Also, destroying countries that refused to have a private central bank.

Ww2 empowered the military industrial complex.

Our foreign policy is dictated by big dollars being made.

That's my take on it anyway.

Have a good weekend.