AMERICAN DOCTRINE: The Foundation of Grand Strategy Lamont Colucci Ripon College There is an organic American grand strategy, expressed over three centuries in multiple presidential doctrines. Through an examination of grand strategy and doctrines, a clear pattern of success and failure can be demonstrated. Doctrines and grand strategy continue to vanish from policy and public discourse. Often the concept of American Grand Strategy has nearly vanished from any discussion of national security and foreign policy. There is an assumption that expressions such as national security, foreign policy, national security doctrines, grand strategy, vital, national, and peripheral interests are the same concept; they are not. There are many definitions of Grand Strategy; they range along the spectrum from the simple to the complex. Grand Strategy is put into practice with the adoption of na- tional security doctrines. These doctrines should be the highest form of statecraft, but they are often ignored or misunderstood. This article examines the definition of Grand Strategy, why Grand Strategy is often ignored, how Grand Strategy relates to national security doctrines, how national security doctrines are created and im- plemented, what have been the common themes in American Grand Strategy and doctrines, and what the future holds for American Grand Strategy. It postulates the return to an organic American doctrine that can engage the current national security threats. Keywords: The United States, National Security, Foreign Policy, De- fense Policy, American Grand Strategy, Successful National Security Pol- icy, Themes in National Security Doctrines, Current National Security Threats, National Interest, Definition of Grand Strategy, History of U.S. National Security Doctrine, American Exceptionalism, Geopolitics, Pri- macy, U.S. Way of War, Transnational Foreign Terrorist Organizations, Presidential Doctrines. SUMMER 2018 133 AMERICAN DOCTRINE La doctrina estadounidense: los fundamentos de la gran estrategia Hay una gran estrategia americana que es orgánica, expresada a lo largo de tres siglos en múltiples doctrinas presidenciales. A través de el examen de doctrinas y de gran estrategia, puede ser demostrado un claro patrón de éxito y fracaso. Las doc- trinas y la gran estrategia continúan desvaneciéndose de las políticas y del discurso público. A menudo, el concepto de la Gran Estrategia Americana casi se ha desapa- recido de cualquier discusión sobre política exterior y seguridad nacional. Hay un supuesto que sostiene que las expresiones tales como seguridad nacional, política exterior, doctrinas de seguridad nacional, gran estrategia, intereses vitales, nacio- nales, y periféricos son el mismo concepto; pero no lo son. Hay muchas definiciones de Gran Estrategia; varían a lo largo de un espectro que va desde lo simple hasta lo complejo. La Gran Estrategia es puesta en práctica con las doctrinas de seguridad nacional. Estas doctrinas deberían ser la forma más elevada del arte del estado, pero a menudo son ignoradas o malinterpretadas. Este artículo examina la defin- ición de Gran Estrategia, por qué la Gran Estrategia es frecuentemente ignorada, cómo la Gran Estrategia se relaciona con las doctrinas de seguridad nacional, cómo las doctrinas de seguridad nacional son creadas e implementadas, cuáles han sido los temas comunes en las doctrinas y Gran Estrategia Americanas, y lo qué es de esperarse en el futuro de la Gran Estrategia Americana. Postula el retorno a una doctrina americana orgánica que puede vincularse con las actuales amenazas a la seguridad nacional. Palabras clave: Estados Unidos, Seguridad Nacional, Política Exterior, Política de Defensa, Gran Estrategia Americana, Temas de la Doctrina de Seguridad Nacional, Temas Actuales de Amenazas a la Seguridad Nacio- nal, Intereses Nacionales. 美国学说：大战略的根基 三个多世纪以来，多个总统学说中都体现了一种统一的美国大战略。通 过对大战略和学说进行检验，能够清晰证明成功和失败的模式。然而如 同以往，学说和大战略仍然没有在政策和公共话语中有所体现。美国大 战略概念几乎在任何关于国家安全和外交政策的探讨中消失。有假设认 为，诸如国家安全、外交政策、国家安全学说、大战略、重要利益、国 家利益和边缘利益之类的表述都是同一概念；但他们并非属于同一概 念。关于美国大战略的定义有很多；这些定义或简单或复杂。大战略随 着国家安全学说一起投入实践。这些学说本应成为最高级别的治国之 道，然而却时常被忽视或误解。本文检验了：大战略的定义、大战略为 何时常被忽略、国家安全学说是如何产生和实行的、大战略和学说中常 134 WORLD AFFAIRS Lamont Colucci 见的主题有哪些、以及大战略的未来是什么。本文假设了”统一的美国 学说”所能获得的回报，它能应对当前的国家安全威胁。 关键词：美国，外交政策，美国大战略，国家安全学说，国家安全威 胁，美国安全利益 The concept of American Grand Strategy has nearly vanished from discussions of national security and foreign policy. Although some schol- ars have reignited the debate, the debate tends to focus narrowly on the present, whereas true grand strategy harnesses centuries—in both direc- tions. Grand strategic visions for the United States were not discussed through the 2016 presidential election; some candidates developed pieces of national security and foreign policy, but few outlined how America should protect its national interests or presented a vision to guarantee American primacy, prosperity, and values. Sometimes, expres- sions such as national security, foreign policy, national security doctrines, grand strategy, vital, and other national interests are assumed to be the same concept. They are not. The dominant subject in national strategy since 9/11 has been counterterrorism, but intelligence and counterter- rorism policy are not national security policy, and national security policy is not national security strategy, which in turn is not grand strategy or national security doctrine. Nothing is more important to the survival of American civilization than a coherent, competent, and robust national security doctrine that can provide a foundation for grand strategy. An all-encompassing doctrine is needed for the 21st century, an American Doctrine that would adhere to nine grand strategy themes: American Exceptionalism, expansion, the empire of liberty and democracy pro- motion, free commerce, unilateralism, internationalism, the American way of war, geopolitics, and primacy. These themes must be embraced in a bipartisan way that affirms Daniel Webster’s (1831, 8) quotation: “[e]ven our party divisions, acrimonious as they are, cease at the water’s edge.” The result of adopting an American Doctrine based on America’s history, traditions, and values would be the inability of any particular administration to renounce such a doctrine. Grand strategy is the most critical form of statecraft. If security is the first order of any state, grand strategy is the method to achieve it. We have become focused on the present with an assumption that inertia will carry us through. The suc- cess of past administrations to create and harness a grand strategy has allowed this attitude to appear successful. As is illustrated here, there SUMMER 2018 135 AMERICAN DOCTRINE is a clear method of success and failure, as well as an ability to create a strategic solution that, in the American case, is done through strategic doctrine. After illustrating grand strategy, interests, and doctrines, this study will assess the themes of successful doctrine and the road forward. Grand strategy is the expression of doctrine in practice. National secu- rity doctrine serves grand strategy since grand strategy imposes a “vigorous coherence between ends and means” (Dueck 2015, 15). Simple definitions of grand strategy identify it as the “calculated relation of means to large ends” (Liebert 2014, 2). More complex definitions illustrate a “hierarchy of interests and principles” (Martel 2015, 339). Grand Strategy in practice announces and adheres to a permanent national security doctrine. The fundamental purpose of any state is to create grand strategy that attempts to harness military, economic, and political power to advance the nation (Strong 2005, 25). It implies the use of force to promote these interests (Sarkesian, Williams, and Cimbala 2007, 5). Grand strategy is married to hard power and military force; unlike domestic policy, it creates the conditions for either total triumph or total destruction (Art 2004, 1–2). Grand strategy is often ignored because it is inconvenient, hard to change, and subject to the “tyranny of the status quo” (Drezner 2011). Its devel- opment requires a formidable depth of knowledge. No electoral constit- uency holds a president accountable for not having a grand strategy even though having one is the raison d’être of the presidency. To ignore grand strategy is to engage in “episodic adventurism and incremental crisis man- agement” (Doherty 2013). Grand Strategy is further burdensome since it requires constant adaptation (F. W. Kagan 2008, 63). And the public and practitioners may easily ignore it because it tends to be translated through doctrines that start primarily with words, not actions. Vital and National Interests Nations’ hierarchy of interests is often divided among vital, national, and peripheral interests. Discussing national security requires an understanding of particularly the first two of these. Vital interests are existential; a civilization’s failure to protect them could bring about its extinction. A “state is unwilling to compromise” (Snow and Drew 2010, 4) these interests, which include population protection, territorial integrity, and sovereignty (Yarger and Barber 1997). For most of the last century, America’s greatest vital interests were preventing the Soviet Union or international communism from controlling Eurasia (Bush 1990) and protecting itself from the USSR’s nuclear threat. Primarily, Grand Strategy, expressed through doctrine, must address vital interests. 136 WORLD AFFAIRS Lamont Colucci Whereas vital interests tend to be blatant, national interests often cause more