Download/Hearing 03-05-14-A., P

University of Warwick institutional repository: http://go.warwick.ac.uk/wrap A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick http://go.warwick.ac.uk/wrap/66906 This thesis is made available online and is protected by original copyright. Please scroll down to view the document itself. Please refer to the repository record for this item for information to help you to cite it. Our policy information is available from the repository home page. The Fractured Consensus How competing visions of grand strategy challenge the geopolitical identity of American leadership under the Obama presidency Author: Georg Löfflmann Thesis submitted for awarding of academic degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) University of Warwick Department of Politics and International Studies Date of Submission: 30 September 2014 Table of Contents List of Tables and Illustrations i. Acknowledgements ii. Inclusion of Published Work iii Abstract iv. Introduction p. 1 A critical research perspective of grand strategy p. 9 Research question p. 12 Research statement p. 12 Theoretical background p. 14 Methodology p. 16 Chapter Outline p. 21 1. Reimagining grand strategy: From Clausewitz to critical geopolitics p. 25 Part I Grand strategy p. 26 Strategy and grand strategy p. 26 Grand strategy in International Relations: Realists vs. the rest p. 29 A critical security studies perspective of grand strategy: Power/knowledge, discourse and intertextuality p. 36 Basic discourses of grand strategy: Hegemony, engagement and restraint p. 44 Part II Geopolitics p. 51 Geopolitics - Past and present p. 51 Classical geopolitics from Mackinder to Haushofer: Heartland, sea power and Lebensraum p. 53 Geopolitics makes a comeback p. 56 The critical turn p. 60 American grand strategy as geopolitical discourse: Constructing the role and position of the United States in world politics p. 65 Conclusion p. 72 2. Filming hegemony - Popular geopolitics and the cinematic production of national security p. 75 Critical geopolitics, film and popular narratives of grand strategy p. 81 Heroism, militarization and the representation of the geopolitical identity of the United States on screen p. 89 Hollywood, the Pentagon and the cinematic production of national security p. 97 Counter-narratives in national security cinema p. 116 Conclusion p. 122 3. Competing visions for America – Popular grand strategy discourses on the New York Times best sellers list p. 127 Hegemony between American leadership and American empire p. 131 Engagement with the post-American world p. 142 America is coming home – The case for restraint p. 151 Nationalism, populism and American exceptionalism p. 160 Conclusion p. 169 4. The American grand strategy discourse in International Relations p. 173 U.S. grand strategy experts, IR theory and the impact of academic research on political practice p. 181 The grand strategy debate in Foreign Affairs p. 191 Rethinking hegemony: The geopolitical imagination of global leadership p. 193 Engagement between leadership and partnership p. 200 Leading from behind – The American superpower under restraint p. 205 Conclusion p. 212 5. The Washington consensus: Think tanks, national security experts and American grand strategy in the public policy debate p. 216 Budget hawks versus defense hawks: Grand strategy under sequestration and the debate on the Right p. 223 Rebalancing hegemony – The Asian pivot, the Obama administration and the bipartisan consensus on American leadership p. 235 A new way forward? A progressive grand strategy of sustainable security p. 244 From grand strategy research to policy making: The Centre for a New American Security (CNAS) and the Obama administration p. 251 Conclusion p. 257 6. Strategic Vision: National security, American defense policy and the geopolitics of military preeminence p. 261 U.S. defense policy planning and the geopolitical vision of American leadership in a multipolar system p. 266 Superpower under restraint: Sequestration and its impact on defense policy and the military planning of American grand strategy p. 275 From COIN to Air-Sea Battle: The geopolitics of military strategy p. 284 ‘Grooming for leadership’ - The U.S. military and the institutionalization of grand strategy thinking in senior military education p. 296 Conclusion p. 301 7. President Obama – Vision for Change? p. 305 Leading through engagement in a post-American world p. 313 Nation-building at home, covert operations abroad p. 327 Leading from behind: Hegemony between military restraint and the global retrenchment of American power p. 337 Conclusion p. 350 8. Conclusion p. 354 Limitations of research p. 360 Advantages of research design p. 361 American grand strategy as discourse of geopolitical identity: The worldview of American hegemony p. 363 Competing visions, conflicting discourses: Hybridity, intertextuality and the ‘breaking point’ of the grand strategy discourse p. 367 Beyond American grand strategy: A critical research perspective for the study of identity and security in world politics p. 371 9. List of abbreviations p. 375 10. Appendix – List of Interviews p. 376 11. Bibliography p. 377 List of Tables and Illustrations Fig. 1 Model of discourse analysis p. 21 Fig. 2 Discourses of American grand strategy p. 50 Fig. 3 The World - Colonial Possessions and Commercial Highways 1910 p. 52 Fig. 4 ‘The Pentagon’s new map’ p. 59 Fig. 5 List of films surveyed p. 87 Fig. 6 Iron Man 2 (2010) p. 90 Fig. 7 G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (1985) p. 93 Fig. 8 Marvel’s The Avengers (2012) p. 97 Fig. 9 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) p. 107 Fig. 10 Battleship (2012) p. 110 Fig. 11 Act of Valor (2012) p. 113 Fig. 12 The Messenger (2009) p. 114 Fig. 13 Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) p. 118 Fig. 14 White House Down (2013) p. 121 Fig. 15 Thompson Reuters Journal Citation Reports 2009-2013: Top 10 International Relations journals ranked by impact factor p. 178 Fig. 16 List of Think Tanks p. 221 Fig. 17 The United States ‘Unified Command Plan’ p. 286 Fig. 18 President Obama at West Point p. 309 Fig. 19 Barack Obama on the campaign trail in 2008 p. 322 i Acknowledgements Writing a PhD thesis can at once be a wonderfully stimulating intellectual experience, and a daunting task that isolates one from the rest of the world. Coming as a German PhD student to the United Kingdom to write about American grand strategy and American identity with the help of a French philosopher might even seem a little bit presumptuous. However, it is my conviction that one of the most important contributions we can make in the study of International Relations is to open up new avenues of inquiry, to give a different perspective that allows us to see beyond our own horizon. In this sense, I hope this outsider’s perspective on America and its role in the world has done justice to the subject, and that it can contribute to the important debate about where this fascinating and conflicted country is headed. I am especially grateful to the many people that took the time from their busy schedules to see me for interviews in the United States, from Boston to Washington DC and down to Beaufort, South Carolina: Andrew Bacevich, Shawn Brimley, Thomas Donnelly, Christopher Preble, Mark ‘Puck’ Mykleby, Michael O’Hanlon, and Colonel Greg Schultz all gave me precious insights into the competing visions for American grand strategy. I also want to thank Warwick University for generously providing the funding that allowed me to undertake this fieldwork. Most of all, I am indebted to my supervisors Stuart Croft and Nick Vaughan- Williams, whose friendly advice, constructive criticism, humor, and wonderful support has accompanied me through these last three years. This thesis would not have been what it is without them. Finally, I want to thank my parents Ursula and Werner, and my wife Lisa, whose love and support have always given me the confidence to pursue my goals and develop my talents. This thesis is dedicated to them. ii Inclusion of Published Work Material from chapter 2 (pp. 91-106) on the cooperation of the U.S. Department of Defense with the American motion picture industry has been published as: Georg Löfflmann, “Hollywood, the Pentagon, and the cinematic production of national security,” Critical Studies on Security 1, no. 3 (2013): pp. 280-295. iii Grey, my friend, is every theory, and green alone life’s golden tree. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Abstract For the last seventy years the United States of America has been the dominant political, economic, military, and cultural influence in the world. Under President Obama, this position is being challenged. In politics, academia, and popular media, the established continuity of American leadership is contrasted against the dynamics of an emerging ‘post-American world.’ Elements of Obama’s foreign and security policy, such as ‘leading from behind,’ have raised questions if America still believes in its national exceptionalism, and if it follows a grand strategy designed to secure its global hegemony. Against this backdrop, this thesis aims to make an original contribution to knowledge by moving beyond traditional understandings of grand strategy as an exclusive calculation of material resources, and coherent vision to align means and ends. The main argument is that American grand strategy cannot be reduced to an abstract product of scientific rationality, but must be understood as an identity performing discourse, where a geopolitical vision of a country’s role and position in the world is linked to its national security policy. Drawing from literature in critical security studies and critical geopolitics, the thesis examines how representations of geopolitical identity are intertextually connected across different discursive domains, from popular culture, to academic expertise, and policymaking, and how the cross- discursive interplay of identity and practice confirms and contests dominant concepts of political knowledge. The thesis concludes that, beyond an established identity paradigm of American exceptionalism, indispensability and hegemony, American grand strategy under President Obama is a multidimensional and inherently conflicted discourse, fluctuating between a reconfirmation and reformulation of American leadership.

Load more