Third, the West should not feel, much less show, any sense of weakness, indecision, or dithering. America’s grand strategy rests on freedom, while authoritarian states adhere slavishly to the failed logic of controlling all facets of life in their societies, as seen in North Korea and Syria as well as Russia and China. Put directly, the greatest risk for the future of America’s role in the world is a self-inflicted failure to adapt and to lead. Failing to articulate and implement a coherent and positive grand strategy is a sure way to undermine the foundations on which international security rests.

Policymakers must bear in mind, however, that the U.S. is advised to guard against the twin dangers of under- and over-reaction. There will always be authoritarian states and rogue non-state actors willing to use provocative language and actions to threaten the current world order. While threats to American security should be taken seriously, such provocative language does not mean that Washington should always reciprocate. However, failing to respond forcefully and patiently only emboldens those seeking to upend the status quo. In the end, the United States must marshal its self-confidence into a coherent strategy that empowers it to deal with current threats, anticipate new challenges, and embrace arising opportunities in a direct, measured, and statesmanlike fashion.

When policymakers step back from the details of its language and policies, the case for the United States to think carefully about its grand strategy is fundamentally simple. It is designed to meet serious threats while creating and taking advantage of strategic opportunities. To continue on the present course of "drifting" from crisis to crisis effectively invites powers to believe that America is in decline. Worse, Americans, too, might believe wrongly that the nation’s decline is inevitable, which in turn will make matters for difficult and dangerous for the West, at least for now.

A strategic weakness with American foreign policy is the deep and enduring political polarization in Washington that complicates, and often paralyzes, U.S. policymaking. While the United States once conducted its foreign policy on a largely bipartisan basis, we now see divisions in Washington on virtually all issues. The failure of policymakers in Washington to move beyond this polarized environment puts at risk the nation’s ability to act with one voice on foreign policy. Essentially, it puts at risk the entire enterprise of grand strategy because a deeply divided nation cannot implement policies to defend its interests that call for using its resources effectively and in a coordinated fashion.

By definition, American grand strategy demands that policymakers and politicians take the long view. While it is an eternal challenge for policymakers in Washington to look beyond the next election, the nation simply has no choice. It must build a grand strategy that addresses how the United States deals with the future that extends beyond coming months or years. Abroad, the nation must work with other states and institutions to shape the secure international order that all states desperately need. The alternative of a world marked by uncertainty, fear, and strife is one that no American policymaker can willingly countenance.

An enduring grand strategy must evoke a positive vision of the peace, security, and prosperity to which American policymakers should aspire and the public will energetically endorse. It should express, perhaps more than any other idea, the principles that Americans are more likely to embrace, and these historically have rested on democratic and shared values that are not unique to the United States.

To be successful, America’s grand strategy should demonstrate a sense of optimism that this state, while working with others, can build a more secure, peaceful, and prosperous world. This optimism is based on the simple, yet powerful, principle that all states need to work together to confront dangers in this world. These dangers call for reinforcing the foundations of American power, strengthening American leadership, and building strong and lasting alliances that can work cooperatively in promoting a better world.

A grand strategy must cultivate the resources, ingenuity, and tools of an irrepressibly innovative and dynamic society. As importantly, it gives policymakers and the public a positive notion of what American foreign policy seeks to accomplish. Lastly, it articulates a vision of the world that America wants to build and the risks it confronts, while reassuring the people that their nation’s foreign policy is organized on the basis of principles that call for the prudent exercise of power. With such principles, the nation can avoid the dual perils of drift and overreach or fixating on tired arguments about the nation’s inevitable decline.

If America is to assure its future security and prosperity, we need a new grand strategy that harnesses its peoples’ spirit, sense of optimism, and perseverance to help the nation meet the challenges and grasp the opportunities of this era. This remains the greatest challenge for contemporary scholars and policymakers, and is one that we cannot lose sight of if we are to build a stronger and enduring vision for American global leadership.

“The Making of a Future American Grand Strategy” in "Grand Strategy in Theory and Practice: The Need for an Effective American Foreign Policy” by William C. Martel.

Copyright © 2015 William C. Martel. Reprinted with the permission of Cambridge University Press.

[1] For example, see Terry L. Deibel, Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic for American Statecraft (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

[2] William C. Martel, “Why America Needs a Grand Strategy,” The Diplomat, June 18, 2012, at www.thediplomat.com/2012/06/18/why-america-needs-a-grand-strategy.

[3] Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (New York: Random House, 1987).

[4] For the argument that the “relationship between ends and means is the all-important center, the iron linkage of [all] strategic thought,” see John Lewis Gaddis, “Containment and the Logic of Strategy,” The National Interest, Vol. 10 (Winter, 1987-88), p. 29.

[5] See John Lewis Gaddis, We Now Know: Rethinking the Cold War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 88, on the U.S. unwillingness to exploit its nuclear advantage.

[6] See Adam Quinn, "The Art of Declining Politely: Obama's Prudent Presidency and the Waning of American Power," International Affairs, Vol. 87, No. 4 (2011), pp. 803-824.

[7] On principles in American foreign policy, see George F. Kennan, "On American Principles," Foreign Affairs (1995), pp. 116-126.

[8] Political culture is defined as "the set of attitudes, beliefs and sentiments that give order and meaning to a political process and which provide the underlying assumptions and rules that govern behavior in the political system." On political culture, see Charles Andrain, Political Life and Social Change (Belmont, Calif.: Duxbury Press, 1974); Talcott Parsons, “Culture and Social Systems Revisited,” Social Sciences Quarterly 53 (September 1972), pp. 253-66; and Karl Deutsch, “Symbols of Political Community,” in Lyman Bryson et al., Symbols and Society (New York: Harper and Row, 1953).

[9] See William C. Martel, “Why America Needs a Grand Strategy,” The Diplomat, June 18, 2012, at www.thediplomat.com/2012/06/18/why-america-needs-a-grand-strategy.

[10] See Peter Feaver, “Debating American Grand Strategy After Major War,” Orbis, Vol. 53, No. 4, Fall 2009, pp. 547-552; William C. Martel, “America’s Dangerous Drift,” The Diplomat, February 25, 2013, at www.thediplomat.com/2013/02/25/americas-dangerous-drift/; Jeremi Suri, ‘‘American Grand Strategy from the Cold War’s End to 9/11,’’ Orbis, Fall 2009, pp. 621–626.

[11] See William C. Martel, “Grand Strategy of the Authoritarian Axis,” The Diplomat, July 24, 2012, at www.thediplomat.com/2012/07/24/grand-strategy-of-the-authoritarian-axis/.

[12] See David W. Moore, “Public Overwhelmingly Backs Bush in Attacks on Afghanistan,” Gallup, October 8, 2001, at www.gallup.com/poll/4966/Public-Overwhelmingly-Backs-Bush-Attacks-Afghanistan.aspx.

[13] See “Most Favor Afghanistan Withdrawal by 2014 But Fear U.S. Will Stay Too Long,” Rasmussen Reports, May 4, 2013, at

www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/afghanis.... Cf., Richard C. Eichenberg, "Victory Has Many Friends: US Public Opinion and the Use of Military Force, 1981–2005," International Security, Vol. 30, No. 1 (2005), pp. 140-177.

[14] President George H.W. Bush, National Security Strategy of the United States, March 1990, at www.bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/pdfs/national_security_strategy_90.pdf.

[15] See Kenneth Lieberthal, “The American Pivot to Asia: Why President Obama's turn to the East is easier said than done,” Foreign Policy, December 21, 2011; Mark E. Manyin, Pivot to the Pacific?: The Obama Administration's "Rebalancing Toward Asia (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2012).

[16] For analyses of the role of selective service in shared responsibility, see Dale R. Herspring, Civil-Military Relations and Shared Responsibility: A Four-Nation Study (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013).

[17] Walter Russell Mead, Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World (New York: Knopf, 2001), pp. 47-48.

[18] See Leslie H. Gelb, "GDP Now Matters More Than Force-A US Foreign Policy for the Age of Economic Power," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 89 (November-December 2010), pp. 35-43.

[19] See Francis Fukuyama, “The End of History,” The National Interest, Vol. 31, 1989, pp. 3-18.

[20] See Leslie H. Gelb, “In Defense of Leading from Behind: So What if it's a Terrible Slogan? It's Still the Right Strategy,” Foreign Policy, April 29, 2013, at www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/29/in_defense_of_leading_from_behind.

[21] See Michael R. Gordon, “Kerry Cites Clear Evidence of Chemical Weapon Use in Syria,” New York Times, August 26, 2013, at www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/world/middleeast/syria-assad.html.