Grand Strategy Analysis: a Proto-Theoretical Approach Patrick Magee Old Dominion University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Graduate Program in International Studies Theses & Graduate Program in International Studies Dissertations Spring 2005 Grand Strategy Analysis: A Proto-Theoretical Approach Patrick Magee Old Dominion University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/gpis_etds Part of the International Relations Commons, Political Theory Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Magee, Patrick. "Grand Strategy Analysis: A Proto-Theoretical Approach" (2005). Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), dissertation, International Studies, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/09n2-hn21 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/gpis_etds/67 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Program in International Studies at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Program in International Studies Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GRAND STRATEGY ANALYSIS: A PROTO-THEORETICAL APPROACH by Patrick Magee B.A. May 1996, University of Virginia M.A. December 2000, Old Dominion University A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL STUDIES OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY May 2005 pproyedby: imon SerfatyVDirector) ResInaTCarp (Member) ember) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT GRAND STRATEGY ANALYSIS: A PROTO-THEORETICAL APPROACH Patrick Magee Old Dominion University, 2005 Director: Dr. Simon Serfaty International relations scholarship begins and ends with assumptions - about human nature; about human interaction; about starting points, relative information, and outcomes. Such assumptions are necessary to further the intellectual coherence and development of scholarly work. However, they restrict the applicability of scholarly research to those situations that parallel the work’s underlying assumptions. This work argues the body of international relations scholarship as a whole would benefit from the development of a pre-theory state, absent any assumptions about international relations, from which observers can identify those works of scholarship that are most effective in explaining perceptive states and the strategic decisions taken in light of them. Such a state of thinking acts as a proto-theory of international relations. Proto-theory embraces the full realm of international relations scholarship, other fields, and any other area of human thought that provides insight into the manner in which strategic thinkers perceive themselves, their nations, and their situations. By expressing no initial preference for a particular model of decision-making or theory of international relations, it offers a means of transcending debates regarding the “correctness” of any particular view. Rather, proto-theory allows observers to focus on the explanatory power of any particular concept regarding the context under investigation. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This work tests the feasibility of a proto-theoretical approach to international relations by employing it in an examination of the United States’ abandonment of its longstanding strategy of containment. It identifies the views prevalent in the United States prior to and at the time of its decision to alter its grand strategy in general and its approach to its competition with the Soviet Union in particular. It then compares the scholarly approaches most relevant to those views to determine if the behavioral indicators identified by them are accurate in their description of subsequent grand strategy. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. To intemperate intellects who will see my deepest understandings as childishly simplified and most diligent efforts as insufficient Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Any written work is a collaborative effort between authors and those good souls who guide, assist, and sustain them through the process. My first and highest gratitude is for my parents, Kenneth and Judy Magee. Their unfaltering belief in my abilities and confidence in my choices sustained me in times and ways no writer has sufficient skill to tell. This doctoral dissertation is as much a testament of their faith and investment in my efforts as it is proof of my own dedication to the subject matter. I want to thank also those who encouraged me to embrace the vision behind the work and find the knowledge and understanding that support it. Primary among these is Dr. Simon Serfaty, whose patient direction as my chair and mentor inspired my grasping at professionalism. Any thematic coherence and logical structure in my writings are the result of his gentle, but firm hand through my years as a graduate student. I would also like to thank Dr. Regina Karp, who took a chance on an overconfident and unsuspecting 22-year old by letting him into her Ph.D. program. My hope is she will find the results of her gamble worth the risks and efforts. Also important to the creation of this work has been Dr. Chandra de Silva, who graciously agreed to lend his philosophical inquiry and historical perspective to the process. I owe much appreciation to the Cold War International History Project, which translated and published online the documents of the former Soviet Union and thereby provided me with first-source material. I would like to thank Charles Doran, whose patient explanation of his power cycle theory clarified my own understandings of the uses and limitations of theoretical models. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Never forgotten will be the support of the people whom I have been fortunate to consider close to me. Laura Cole brought her scientific inclinations, good humor, infinite patience, and endless cups of coffee to this struggling author as he sought to put these thoughts to paper. Andrew Deligiannis, Andrew Haug, Brook Rolka, Bryon Sutherland, James Medler, and countless other good friends offered the faith in my talents and support for my efforts that is indispensable for an author’s perspective and enthusiasm. Finally, I would like to thank my grandmother, Eleanor Magee, who, like my folks, aided my efforts to finish by making a place in her home for my piles of books, papers, and computer equipment, so that I had a place to live, research, and write in the mode of a full-time scholar. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 1 Purpose...................................................................................................7 Structure ....................................................................................... 11 Elements o f a Proto-Theoretical Approach..........................................14 Conclusions...........................................................................................47 II. UNDERSTANDING AMERICAN WORLDVIEWS ......................... 49 Introduction...........................................................................................49 Literature Review: Foundations o f American Grand Strategy........... 52 Historical Review: American Power Perceptions.............................124 Conclusions .................................................................................... 145 III. EXAMINING AMERICAN GRAND STRATEGY, 1976-1985 ................... 148 Introduction......................................................................................... 148 Defining a New American Grand Strategy .........................................152 First Adjustment: Confronting Soviet Expansion..............................210 Second Adjustment: Pushing for Preeminence..................................253 Conclusions.........................................................................................297 IV. CONCLUSION............................................................304 REFERENCES................................................................................................................311 WORKS CONSULTED..................................................................................................335 VITA....................................................... .........................................................................339 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Illustration Page 1. State A’s Long Term Power Trends ..............................................................34 2. Bilateral Relative Power (1st Viewpoint) ..................................................... 45 3. Bilateral Relative Power (2nd Viewpoint) .................................................... 46 4. American Long Term Power Trends (1945-1975 Viewpoint) .................. 142 5. American Long Term Bilateral Power Trends (1945-1975 Viewpoint) 144 6. American Long Term Power Trends (1975-1979 Viewpoint) .................. 167 7. American Long Term Bilateral Power Trends (1975-1979