To say that we live in an era of renewed great power competition is hackneyed. Nevertheless, it contains important insights: after several decades as the world's sole superpower, the United States confronts growing security competition in Europe and, especially, Asia. What does this mean for U.S. grand strategy - the United States' overarching 'theory' of how to create security for itself using the tools at its disposal?
Problems, Pitfalls, and Prospects in U.S. Grand Strategy
Ongoing research tackles this question head on. One issue concerns whether the United States can sustain a "primacist" grand strategy and strive to remain the world's sole superpower. In a report for the Center for a New American Security, I assess the broad sweep of American strategic primacy, identify its problems, and suggest a course correction is in order.
Additional research imposes order on a complex contemporary grand strategy debate. Here, a short article in the Texas National Security Review with Emma Ashford underlines the strong continuities in the Trump administration's approach to great power competition with prior U.S. administrations. More directly, a project coordinated by scholars from the Norwegian Defence College - soon to be published with Routledge - assesses areas of overlap and disagreement among different grand strategies under discussion today before considering their respective merits and drawbacks; although no single grand strategy is without problems, plans to sustain U.S. primacy in an era of competition are particularly problematic. My plan is to extend this research into a broader assessment of U.S. grand strategic alternatives and their suitability for a period in which great power tensions are on the rise.
Additional research imposes order on a complex contemporary grand strategy debate. Here, a short article in the Texas National Security Review with Emma Ashford underlines the strong continuities in the Trump administration's approach to great power competition with prior U.S. administrations. More directly, a project coordinated by scholars from the Norwegian Defence College - soon to be published with Routledge - assesses areas of overlap and disagreement among different grand strategies under discussion today before considering their respective merits and drawbacks; although no single grand strategy is without problems, plans to sustain U.S. primacy in an era of competition are particularly problematic. My plan is to extend this research into a broader assessment of U.S. grand strategic alternatives and their suitability for a period in which great power tensions are on the rise.
Understanding Great Power Competition
To do so, we further need to consider how great power competition may evolve in the future, and its implications for the United States. With support from a fellowship from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, closely-related research will examine the different types of great power competitions (e.g., economic, military, ideological) that can occur in theory and/or practice; assess their particular dynamics; evaluate the U.S.-China contest (for preliminary thinking, see this policy piece with Ben Friedman) among this typology; and consider the strategic options for the United States. The intent is to simultaneously contribute to scholarship on international competitions in general, while rigorously engaging a core issue in the contemporary grand strategy discussion.
