{"id":21101,"date":"2013-07-14T11:18:14","date_gmt":"2013-07-14T16:18:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=21101"},"modified":"2013-07-14T11:18:14","modified_gmt":"2013-07-14T16:18:14","slug":"the-very-definition-of-grand-strategy-is-holding-ends-and-means-in-balance-to-promote-the-security-and-interests-of-the-state","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2013\/07\/14\/the-very-definition-of-grand-strategy-is-holding-ends-and-means-in-balance-to-promote-the-security-and-interests-of-the-state\/","title":{"rendered":"“The very definition of grand strategy is holding ends and means in balance to promote the security and interests of the state”"},"content":{"rendered":"

At the Anti-War<\/em> blog, John Glaser<\/a> looks at the ongoing costs of empire:<\/p>\n

In Foreign Affairs<\/em><\/a>, Michael O\u2019Hanlon and Bruce Riedel suggest a cost-saving measure for America\u2019s empire in the Middle East: opening more U.S. military bases in the region. Instead of relying as it has on expensive \u201caircraft carriers in and near the Persian Gulf,\u201d the U.S. should move its military presence back onto land in at least three different Gulf states.<\/p>\n

The primary purpose of having U.S. military bases peppered throughout the Middle East has traditionally been to exert control over geo-politically vital oil-rich countries and to allow for a rapid and coordinated use of military force at Washington\u2019s command. As a Top Secret National Security Council briefing<\/a> put it in 1954, \u201cthe Near East is of great strategic, political, and economic importance,\u201d as it \u201ccontains the greatest petroleum resources in the world\u201d as well as \u201cessential locations for strategic military bases in any world conflict.\u201d<\/p>\n

O\u2019Hanlon and Riedel don\u2019t even consider the legitimacy of America\u2019s military presence in the Middle East; for them, it is a natural law that can\u2019t be questioned. So when faced with strained budgets that can\u2019t support a sprawling, costly, and unwarranted empire, they try to figure minor cost cutting measures around the edges instead of reevaluating our military postures as a whole.<\/p>\n

A CSIS report<\/a> last year took a different tack, arguing that \u201cdisappearing finances; rising alternative power centers; declining US military predominance; lack of efficacy of key non-military instruments of power; and reduced domestic patience for global adventures,\u201d all require a rethinking of U.S. grand strategy with an eye towards roll-back.<\/p>\n