| |
Grand strategy or high strategy
is the long-term strategy pursued at the highest levels by a nation to further
its interests.[1][2] Issues of grand strategy typically include the choice of
primary versus secondary theaters in war, distribution of resources among the
various services, the general types of armaments manufacturing to favor, and
which international alliances best suit national goals. With considerable
overlap with foreign policy, grand strategy focuses primarily on the military
implications of policy. A country's political leadership typically directs
grand strategy with input from the most senior military officials. Development
of a nation's grand strategy may extend across many years or even multiple
generations. The concept of grand strategy has been extended to describe
multi-tiered strategies in general, including strategic thinking at the level
of corporations and political parties. In business, a grand strategy is a
general term for a broad statement of strategic action. A grand strategy states
the means that will be used to achieve long-term objectives. Examples of
business grand strategies that can be customized for a specific firm include:
market concentration, market development, product development, innovation,
horizontal integration, divestiture, and liquidation.[3]
Definition In defining Grand Strategy, military historian B. H. Liddell Hart
states: [T]he role of grand strategy – higher strategy – is to
co-ordinate and direct all the resources of a nation, or band of nations,
towards the attainment of the political object of the war – the goal
defined by fundamental policy. Grand strategy should both calculate and develop
the economic resources and man-power of nations in order to sustain the
fighting services. Also the moral resources – for to foster the people's
willing spirit is often as important as to possess the more concrete forms of
power. Grand strategy, too, should regulate the distribution of power between
the several services, and between the services and industry. Moreover, fighting
power is but one of the instruments of grand strategy – which should take
account of and apply the power of financial pressure, and, not least of ethical
pressure, to weaken the opponent's will. ... Furthermore, while the horizons of
strategy is bounded by the war, grand strategy looks beyond the war to the
subsequent peace. It should not only combine the various instruments, but so
regulate their use as to avoid damage to the future state of peace – for
its security and prosperity.[4] Grand strategy expands on the traditional idea
of strategy in three ways:[5] expanding strategy beyond military means to
include diplomatic, financial, economic, informational, etc. means examining
internal in addition to external forces – taking into account both the
various instruments of power and the internal policies necessary for their
implementation (conscription, for example) including consideration of periods
of peacetime in addition to wartime.
Historical examples Peloponnesian War One of the earlier writings on grand
strategy comes from Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian War, an account
of the war between the Peloponnesian League (led by Sparta) and the Delian
League (led by Athens).
Roman Empire:
From the era of Hadrian, Roman emperors employed a military strategy of
"preclusive security—the establishment of a linear barrier of
perimeter defence around the Empire. The Legions were stationed in great
fortresses"[6] These "fortresses" existed along the perimeter of
the Empire, often accompanied by actual walls (for example, Hadrian's Wall).
Due to the perceived impenetrability of these perimeter defenses, the Emperors
kept no central reserve army. The Roman system of roads allowed for soldiers to
move from one frontier to another (for the purpose of reinforcements during a
siege) with relative ease. These roads also allowed for a logistical advantage
for Rome over her enemies, as supplies could be moved just as easily across the
Roman road system as soldiers. This way, if the legions could not win a battle
through military combat skill or superior numbers, they could simply outlast
the invaders, who, as historian E.A. Thompson wrote, "Did not think in
terms of millions of bushels of wheat." The emperor Constantine moved the
legions from the frontiers to one consolidated roving army as a way to save
money and to protect wealthier citizens within the cities. However, this grand
strategy, according to some ancient sources, had costly effects on the Roman
empire by weakening its frontier defenses and allowing it to be susceptible to
outside armies coming in. Also, people who lived near the Roman frontiers would
begin to look to the barbarians for protection after the Roman armies departed.
This argument is considered to have originated in the writings of Eunapius[7]
As stated by the 5th century AD historian Zosimus: "Constantine abolished
this frontier security by removing the greater part of the soldiery from the
frontiers to cities that needed no auxiliary forces. He thus deprived of help
the people who were harassed by the barbarians and burdened tranquil cities
with the pest of the military, so that several straightway were deserted.
Moreover, he softened the soldiers who treated themselves to shows and
luxuries. Indeed, to speak plainly, he personally planted the first seeds of
our present devastated state of affairs – Zosimus[8] This charge by
Zosimus is considered to be a gross exaggeration and inaccurate assessment of
the situations in the fourth century under Constantine by many modern
historians. B.H. Warmington, for instance, argues that the statement by Zosimus
is "[an] oversimplification," reminding us that "the charge of
exposure of the frontier regions is at best anachronistic and probably reflects
Zosimus' prejudices against Constantine; the corruption of the soldiers who
lived in the cities was a literary commonplace."[9]
World War II See also: List of World War II conferences and Combined Chiefs of
Staff:
An example of modern grand strategy is the decision of the Allies in World War
II to concentrate on the defeat of Germany first. The decision, a joint
agreement made after the attack on Pearl Harbor (1941) had drawn the US into
the war, was a sensible one in that Germany was the most powerful member of the
Axis, and directly threatened the existence of the United Kingdom and the
Soviet Union. Conversely, while Japan's conquests garnered considerable public
attention, they were mostly in colonial areas deemed less essential by planners
and policy-makers. The specifics of Allied military strategy in the Pacific War
were therefore shaped by the lesser resources made available to the theatre
commanders.[10]
Cold War:
The US and the UK used a policy of containment as part of their grand strategy
during the Cold War.[11]
|
|
