Chapter 4

Grand Strategy
Armed with some basic concepts in international relations and the associated
language, we are prepared to move toward a discussion of national security
strategy. National security strategy, grand strategy, is not about winning a war
in Iraq or about winning a global war on terrorism. Grand strategy is about
assuring the position of the United States in the world, its place in the
international system of states, and it is a guide to the exercise of power and
influence to attain or maintain the desired position. Grand strategy guides the
use of national powerall instruments of national power.
Strategic theories ascribe cause and effect relationships between the uses of
power and their consequences. In the following two chapters, we review modern
strategic thought, including the several variants of Cold War containment, the
strategic alternatives offered after the Cold War, and the pronounced swings in
the strategies of post-Cold War administrations. But first, some definitions are in
order.

What is a strategy?
A strategy links ends, ways, and means. That is, the ends of a strategy are the
objectives or goals to be achieved, the means include the multitude of resources
devoted to achievement of those objectives, and the ways are the methods of
organizing and employing those resources to achieve national objectives. Ways
are the heart of strategy formulation. Aligning and balancing ends, ways, and
means is the strategic calculation.
Not every formulation of ends, ways, and means qualifies as a strategy.
Stating lofty objectives inadequately supported by resources is not a strategy. It
is little more than wishful thinking, a vision. Vision statements are valuable, but
they are not strategies. At the other extreme, providing resources for all
possible objectivesfor example, maintaining large standing military forces
capable of responding to all conceivable contingenciessquanders resources.
Tough choices must be made to concentrate resources to minimize risks to the
most vital interests while accepting some risks elsewhere. If not, the resultant
formulation fails to constitute a strategy, and the failure is a formula for
exhaustion. It is all too easy to fall victim to one of these two pathologies.

What constitutes a good strategy?

A good strategy guides the use of power as events emerge. Without a good
strategy, one can only react to events as they occur, yielding the initiative to the
enemy by allowing the enemy to select the time, place, and terms of the
competition. Some presidents have possessed an overarching understanding of
the geostrategic environment, a view of Americas position in it, and a strategy
to guide their behavior. Eisenhower, Nixon, and George H.W. Bush responded to
crises in the context of a persistent strategy. Other presidents lacked a
governing strategic view and allowed crises to dictate responses. Truman,
Carter, and George W. Bush reacted to crises outside the context of declared
strategy. Presidents are also differentiated by their ability to recognize and seize

strategic opportunities. The Nixon and elder Bush administrations offer notable
successes in this area.
Presidents differed in their ability to limit themselves to pursuits they could
afford. Large, expanding means do not equate to infinite or even adequate
means for all objectives. The condition of undifferentiated threats, an inability to
differentiate between vital and peripheral interests, and the threats to them, led
to exhaustive responses. Good strategies minimize risks to vital interests and
accept some risks elsewhere. Exhaustive responses are all too common, with
Truman, Kennedy-Johnson, Reagan, and the younger Bush offering clear
examples.
A sustainable strategy is underwritten by public support. Only presidential
leadership can build a consensus to commitment. The American public grants
the president wide latitude initiating action, but withdraws support without a
deliberate and sustained consensus-building effort. But even a concerted effort
at consensus building will fail if a strategy is not consistent with the nations
philosophy. Truman, Johnson, and Bush 43 are notable in their failure to build a
consensus to commitment to their respective wars. Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
although beyond the scope of this work, is notable for his sustained effort at
building and maintaining a consensus to commitment.
All instruments of power are brought to bear in a good strategy. There are
limits to what can be achieved with any instrument of power, including the hard
power provided by the military instrument. Failure to recognize the limits of
military power is a dangerous trap. The complementary use of all instruments is
more efficient and more effective. Moreover, not all power is in the hands of the
United States. There are other forces at work that can be leveraged, for
example, rejection of the sense of monolithic communism and recognition of the
separate nationalistic impulses that allowed Nixon to drive a wedge between
China and the Soviet Union.
In short, a good strategy

pits strength against weakness,

denies the enemy the ability to determine the time, place, and terms
of the competition,

distinguishes between vital and peripheral interests,

pursues clear objectives and judiciously applies scarce resources

(subordinates means to ends),

employs all instruments of power,

is consistent with national philosophy, and

is relevant to the time, e.g., consistent with contemporary

international politics, military developments, available technology,
and domestic attitudes.

How is national security strategy expressed?

There are many ways to express grand strategy, but the four expressions of a
nations grand strategy below are used in this text: 1

declaratory policy,
1
Paul H. Nitze, Atoms, Strategy and Policy, Foreign Affairs v (January 1956): 187-198. Nitze
proposed the distinction between declaratory and employment (action) policy. Donald Snow and
others later inserted force development and deployment policy between these two policy levels.


employment policy,

force development policy, and

force deployment policy.

The traditional four expressions are better suited to an era when national
security was principally assured by military force. The twenty-first century
arguably requires a wider understanding of what constitutes the force or power
that can be brought to bear. The four expressions easily extend to include all
instruments of power rather than a narrow focus on the military instrument.
Declaratory policy is what we say we will do. The most obvious example of
declaratory policy is the presidents national security strategy document
required by law since 1987. Other statements of public officials also contribute
to our declaratory policy. Declaratory policy is communicated to influence
enemies, friends, and neutral observers. Such statements deliberately
exaggerate some things and deemphasize others. Policy statements are full of
constructive ambiguitysaying just enough to communicate a position without
precommitting to a response to an unpredicted stimulus.
Employment policy is what we actually do, specifically as our actions relate
to the use of force to achieve our strategic objectives. The overt use of military
force is regularly described in the media. But there are other uses of covert
military or paramilitary force that go unannounced. Economic sanctions and
foreign aid are also examples of action policy.
Force development policy dictates what force structure we maintain and
what we are developing. It includes, for example, the number of Army divisions
and Air Force fighter wings available. It also includes their readiness level, e.g.,
do they require mobilization and training from the reserve forces, or are they
ready for immediate employment? The development of the next generation of
weapon systems is also an important expression of a nations strategy.
Maintaining a nation building capability across the departments and agencies is
another example of force or capability development policy.
Force deployment policy dictates where we position the force in peacetime in
anticipation. Having a small Army force in South Korea, for example, serves as a
trip wire and deterrent against North Korean aggression far out of proportion to
its size. And having a Navy carrier battle group persistently patrolling within
reach of the Persian Gulf is a powerful statement. Where intelligence collection
efforts are focused is another example of deployment policy.
There must be an internal consistency to these four expressions of strategy.
Having a force incapable or poorly positioned to support declaratory policy
renders declaratory policy incredible. Failing to follow through on declaratory
policy renders it incredible as well. The actual use of force demonstrates both
the will and the ability that underwrites credibility. Achieving deterrent and
other influence objectives through credible declaratory policy is less expensive
and more sustainable than force employment as a first resort. Repeating a
premise of this text, we must expand beyond a narrow focus on military force
and consider all instruments of power.
Declaratory policy generally, and the national security strategy document
specifically, sets in motion expensive and laborious processes. If, for example,
there is a shift in emphasis from major war to small war, or vice versa, major
changes to force development policy will follow. The military departments are
required by law to organize, train, and equip the four services for the missions
the president assigns to the regional combatant commanders. An armored

division, for example, had great value in major land war in Europe but much less
value to nation building in Iraq. Major shifts in declaratory policy require new
equipment with logistic support, new organizations, new doctrine, and new
training programs. Each costs money and each takes time. Employment policy
not aligned with declaratory policy, or force development and force deployment
policy not keeping pace with employment policy, virtually assures
unpreparedness of the military instrument.

How is a grand strategy formulated?

How does one formulate a grand strategy? Three broad approaches are
apparent. The well-established majority approach is based on prioritized state
interests. A recurring and recently resurgent approach is based on addressing
international issues expected to reduce the sources of conflict. And a third
approach is based on acting in accord with principles that reflect national
values. These approaches are not mutually exclusive. The interest-based
approach dominates and the other two assert greater influence periodically.
Stephen Cambone describes the two dominant schools: the interests-based
and issues-based schools.2 His analysis was conducted at csis between his
service under Bush 41 and Bush 43 while the issues-based approach enjoyed
resurgence under Clinton. The principles-based or values-based approach
surged under Carter and Bush 43, although it has been apparent throughout
American history.
The interests-based approach. The textbook answer to the questionhow is a
grand strategy formulatedis that ends are determined by examining the
interests of the state and identifying threats, both actual and potential, to those
interests. Interests are prioritized or simply differentiated as vital or peripheral. 3
The state is highly risk averse with respect to vital interests. Vital interests are
non-negotiable and therefore are pursued with all available means including
military force. Honest people can and do disagree on which interests are vital.
The interests school sees national security from the perspective of
national interests with a focus on the minimization of risks to the
United States as a sovereign state in the international system. 4
Defining vital interests too broadly is the first step to strategic exhaustion.
The constraint on available means requires that a strategy concentrate
resources to counter threats and to minimize risks to vital interests. Resources
are shifted to vital interests and risks are shifted to the less vital. If a strategy
a linkage of ends, ways, and meanscannot secure the state against threats to
its vital interests, then ways must be reconsidered, additional means must be
allocated, what constitutes vital interests must be redefined, or greater risks
must be accepted. To defend everything is to defend nothing, Fredrick the Great
reminds us.
2
Stephen A. Cambone, A New Structure for National Security Policy Planning (Washington,
D.C.: CSIS Press, 1998), 8-31.
3
One prominent attempt categorized national interests as vital, extremely important,
important, and less important. Americas National Interests (Washington, D.C.: Commission on
Americas
National
Interests,
1996),
accessed
12
October
2008
http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/monographs/nationalinterests.pdf.
4
Cambone, New Structure, viii.

The interests-based approach to strategy formulation is consistent with

realist thinking. Self interest and the principles of territorial sovereignty, self
determination, and non-intervention dominate.
The issues-based approach. A second prominent view is based on issues
rather than on interests. American national security is best assured by pursuing
international security. And international security is best assured by addressing
the root causes of conflict.
The issues school focuses on global problems that impede the
achievement of a fair international system based on the
improvement of the quality of life of the worlds population.
Resolving these issues, its advocates maintain, will address the
most obvious sources of human conflict and suffering. 5
The issues school defines security threats far more broadly than the
traditional interests school. For example, the spread of HIV/AIDS and
environmental degradation are readily included as threats to security. Other
issues include population growth, access to food and water, migration and
displacement, the rights of women and children, trafficking in drugs and people,
the proliferation of WMD, and access to commercial, financial, and capital
markets. Many security threats are transnational in nature and require
international solutions.
The international community, perhaps represented by the UN, is a very loose
confederation of sovereign states. As such, it is difficult to sustain a consensus
to action. Honest people can and do disagree on the issues to address and on
their respective importance. The international community establishes norms of
behavior between states. It also establishes norms to protect the rights of
individuals against the coercive powers of the state. Clearly the major powers
have greater influence in establishing international norms, but international
norms may not align with American interests or values.
An issues-based strategy formulation process is consistent with idealist,
internationalist, institutionalist, and Wilsonian thinking. Such a process rests
more on universalism and interventionism and less on self determination; it
endorses limited territorial sovereignty.
The principles-based approach. A minority view holds that foreign policy
should be constructed by adhering to specific principles rather than calculating
outcomes based on interests. The animating principles might be derived from
political, economic, or religious ideology. Spreading free market capitalism,
spreading democracy, supporting Israel, intervention against genocide,
intervention for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and nonintervention
are examples of principles to be followed.
The principles school promotes behavior on the international scene
in accordance with specific principles. The goodness of policy
action is determined by how it adheres to or diverges from the
chosen guiding principles rather than on the consequences
obtained.
A specific subset of principles-based thinking periodically gains prominence.
Its principles are based in religion. Some use values-based to describe this
approach, although the same label is used with other meaning. According to this
5

Cambone, New Structure, viii.

school, American international behavior should be guided not by calculation of

worldly consequences but by following certain principles independent of those
worldly consequences. The guiding values are determined by reference to a
biblical interpretation that is believed to be universally applicable. The threat to
national security includes multiculturalism, both domestically and abroad. The
relative growth of populations that do not share American values all constitute
threats to the American way of life.
The values school seeks to project national values by applying to
national security decision making principles derived from biblical
interpretation believed by its advocates to be universally
applicable.
The political faction encouraging the values-based approach is absolutist. It
believes in imposing its version of American values onto the international
community rather than yielding to the norms of the international community.
American values are universal values. Consistent with vindicationism, this
school is willing to export values by aggressive foreign policy including the use
of military force. It represents the crusading rather than the pacifist Christian
tradition. It is Jacksonian, projecting a way of life, not just continentally, but
globally.
Reconciling the Approaches. Adherents to the issues-based and principlesbased approaches tend to pursue domestic policies based on issues or
principles, respectively, and then project those same issues and principles onto
formulation of foreign policy. The interests-based approach, in contrast, does
not attempt to project American ways on others, relying instead on exemplarism
and self-determination. Where we start with strategy formulation has a lot to do
with where we end up.
Interests-based and issues-based approaches hope to achieve consequences
(ends) in the secular, temporal, material world. The values-based approach
seeks consequences in the hereafter by following religious principles or doctrine
based on the biblical interpretation of religious elites. The empirical analysis of
cause and effect that underwrites interest- and issues-based strategy
formulation does not serve the values-based camp.
A cautionary note is in order. Although the orientations to strategy
formulation are widely accepted, the labels are not. Sometimes the term valuesbased is used to describe both issues- and principles-based formulation as
defined above. Sometimes the values referred to are individual liberty and the
rule of law rather than religious in origin. Americans can certainly disagree on
what constitutes national values. What Cambone calls interest-based, the
Princeton Project6 calls threat-based, and what Cambone calls issues-based,
Princeton calls interest-based. Rather than assuming clear meaning from a label
built from words like interests, issues, principles, and values, the cautious
thinker must ask which interests, which issues, which principles, and whose
values.
The diverse American public is galvanized when it comes to vital interests
narrowly definedi.e., national survival and defense of American life, liberty,
and property. Presidents will not be forgiven for failing to secure these vital
6
G. John Ikenberry and Anne-Marie Slaughter, co-directors, Forging a World of Liberty under
Law: US National Security in the 21st Century (Princeton: The Princeton Project on National
Security, 2006).

interests. The same diversity provides fickle support for actions to secure the
liberties of others or for promoting values not shared abroad or even
domestically. Presidents can build domestic coalitions in opposition to their own
actions when the connection to American security is tenuous and the costs are
high.
All three approaches must secure vital interests. Therefore, the issues-based
and principles-based approaches impose costs over and above the interestsbased approach. This explains, perhaps, why the interests-based approach
remains dominant and persistent while the others exhibit transient prominence.
Another plausible explanation is the distinction between national security
policy and foreign policy. Not all foreign policy objectives are matters of national
security. Foreign policy objectives might include advancing human rights in
China, but Chinas failure to guarantee human rights to its citizens does not
constitute a threat to American national security. The interests-based approach
to national security strategy formulation maintains a tighter focus on threats
and makes a clearer distinction between foreign policy and national security
policy. The issues-based approach requires a much broader definition of national
security issues and blurs the distinction between foreign policy and national
security policy.
Regardless of the approach taken, a variety of instruments must be
resourced to achieve national ends. Instruments include, for example,
diplomatic, informational, military, and economic instruments. The mix of
instruments must be sufficient to achieve the stated ends, and the resources
devoted must be affordable. Alternating approaches every four or eight years
creates lurching and contradictory demands on the departments and agencies
that house the instruments of power virtually guaranteeing inadequacy in ways
and means.

Presidential Doctrine
Presidents do not publish an official doctrine under their names. Outside
observerssometimes journalists and sometimes political opponentsidentify
and name presidential doctrine. Doctrines can sometimes be traced to a specific
piece of declaratory policy, e.g., a prominent speech. At other times, doctrines
emerge from an observed pattern of declaratory and employment policy.
Because they represent the judgment of observers, they are open to
interpretation and rebuttal. These doctrines often contain the elements of
strategy in crystallized form. Prominent presidential doctrines are presented in
the following chapters on grand strategy.

Cold War and Post-Cold War strategies

To construct a new strategy, we need not and should not begin with a blank
slate. Some of the best minds available participated in the national security
strategy debate during the Cold War and in the decade that followed. There
were eight containment strategies and four proposed post-Cold War strategies.
Throughout the Cold War, two other strategies were applied consistentlythe
offset strategy and a cost-imposing strategybut they were subordinate to
grand strategy. All are covered in the coming chapters.
The various grand strategies examined in the next two chapters are
characterized in terms of interests and objectives, major underlying premises,

preferred political and military instruments, and policies. Both declaratory

policy (as publicly stated for psychological effect) and employment policy (as
implemented through plans and action) are examined.

Postwar Conditions
The US national security system was established in 1947, but history did not
begin there. Before embarking on an examination of Cold War and post-Cold
War strategies, it is useful to review the geostrategic conditions existing at the
end of WWII as the Cold War was taking shape.
United Nations
The Declaration of the United Nations established the alliance of status quo
nations (Allies) who opposed those states that would use force to acquire
territory and establish dominion over others (Axis). It also serves as the initial
declaration of the formal United Nations that would be established later. A state
had to be a signatory of the Declaration before wars end to become a member
of the UN. After the war, the major powers of the victorious Allies took
responsibility for the occupation of the defeated Axis powers and for governance
of the areas not capable of governing themselves, including those devastated by
the war and those freed from colonial rule but without the institutions of state.
But the victorious wartime alliance was soon dissolved and two poles emerged
in the East and West. The UN was not as united as hoped.
Europe
The United States, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union divided Europe.
The United States, Great Britain, and France soon consolidated their areas, but
the Soviet Union would not join in unification. Europe was divided into East and
West by what would later be called the Iron Curtain. Germany was divided into
East and West. Berlin was similarly divided. The Soviet Union consolidated its
grip on Eastern Europe. A divided Europe would be the main theater throughout
the Cold War competition.
Things were not so clear in other parts of Europe. Greece and Turkey
remained unstable and a competition for the right to govern ensued. Both were
host to violent insurgencies waged by domestic communist antagonists.
Elsewhere, the competition was political, as in Italy, where communists actively
competed in electoral processes. Political warfare would be the norm.
Latin America
Having overturned centuries of Islamic occupation in the Christian Reconquest,
the Catholic Spaniards and Portuguese proceeded to bring Christianity to the
Western Hemisphere. Resource exploitation under powerful landholders,
patrons, brought the golden age of Spain. After European dominance weakened,
Latin American countries slowly and painfully moved forward driven by
nationalistic aspirations. Strongman governments and powerful oligarchies
replaced European colonial powers in repressing populist ambitions. Socialism
was appealing as a counter to oligarchy.
American foreign policy objectives in the Caribbean included controlling sea
lanes for transit of the Panamanian Isthmus and denying a presence to foreign
powers. The Panama Canal opened (1914) within weeks of declarations of war in

Europe. In addition to preventing meddling by European powers, a priority was

placed on protecting American business interests, including Cornelius
Vanderbilts trans-isthmus railroad and American fruit company plantations. To
accomplish these ends, policy sought to establish local political stability and
stimulate economic development.
Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine were guiding principles for US
actions. President James Monroes (1817-1825) original statement of the
Monroe Doctrine (1823) was benign and in solidarity with new world peoples in
the Western Hemisphere seeking self determination from European powers.
President James Polk (1845-1849), an expansionist Southern Democrat in the
Jacksonian tradition, exploited a contrived incident to initiate the MexicanAmerican War (1846-1848). The war was waged under Manifest Destiny, as
allotted by Providence. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) and the
follow-on reduced Mexican claim to territory by 55 percent. President Theodore
Roosevelt (1901-1909) interpreted the Monroe Doctrine to include unilateral
intervention to stabilize states unable to repay European lenders rather than
risk European intervention (1904).

American Imperialism in Latin America

Insurgencies and other political instabilities in Latin America often threatened
American strategic or commercial interests resulting in economic or military
intervention. The Marine Corps was often deployed to re-establish order. Today we
would describe the conditions as failed states and refer to the operations as peace
operations, humanitarian assistance, and nation building. Marines separated the
factions, established a constabulary, restored the judicial system, and provided public
works, including the provision of education and medical care. It was not uncommon
to use forced labor. In general, these operations were conducted within an
environment containing some mix of bandits and rebel insurgents. Marines
conducted tactical operations, typically in remote jungle environments and against
guerrilla forces. The experiences of this period were codified in the Small Wars
Manual of 1940.
Marines conducted three major and three lesser interventions in Central America
and the Caribbean in the decades surrounding WWI. The first of the minor
interventions contributed to the seizure of territory for the Panama Canal (1902). The
United States encouraged a rebellion that separated the Panamanian Isthmus from
Colombia and won a favorable treaty from the newly independent Panama. To protect
American interests, marines entered Nicaragua (1912-1913) as its brutal dictator
brought the country close to bankruptcy. In another minor intervention, marines
helped overthrow what President Wilson called a government of butchers in Mexico
(1914). The Mexican revolution against a government dominated by business and the
Catholic Church eventually produced an election and a constitution. In one of the
longer interventions, marines occupied Haiti (1915-1934) in response to a bloody
revolution. Another major intervention into the Dominican Republic (1916-1924)
resulted in marines establishing a military government. Marines returned to
Nicaragua again (1926-1933) picking up where they left off from the earlier half of
the intervention to provide for free elections with an insurgency in the background.
As foreign policy, American interventions and nation building attempts have a
bleak history, particularly with respect to the tendency for the marine-built native
constabularies to later support the rise of a dictator. It was common for marines to
provide the officers of a constabulary, the Guardia, and have the enlisted ranks filled
from the indigenous population. After marines left the Dominican Republic with a
stable government from 1922 to 1924, General Rafael Trujillo later used the same
constabulary to establish himself as dictator. Anastosia Somoza, backed by the
Guardia, made himself president of Nicaragua in 1936. Marines returned to the
Dominican Republic (1958-1963) to help strengthen the army of dictator Franois
Pappa Doc Duvalier. Whether the US Government was deposing or installing
tyrants, the marines were there. A lasting legacy was established.

Republican President William Howard Taft (1909-1913) preferred dollars

over bulletsdollar diplomacy. Tafts administration encouraged US businesses
to offer loans to repay debts to European powers. Insolvent states accepted
loans in exchange for accommodations to US businesses and for governmental
and economic reforms. US government takeover of custom houses ensured
repayment. President Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) reserved the right to decide
which Latin American governments to recognize as legitimate (1915).
The era of American imperialism in Latin America nominally came to an end
prior to WWII when in 1933 President Franklin Roosevelts inaugural address
introduced the good neighbor policy toward Latin America. But the United
States would continue its unwelcome interventions. Rightwing dictators opposed
to communism would be supported by the United States while indigenous,
populist, and nationalist leftwing movements would be encouraged by the Soviet
Union as part of the Cold War great-power competition.

Africa
African countries were freed from their colonial pasts. Few African states had
the institutions of government or the skilled bureaucrats necessary for
government. In general, those states that had been subjected to British rule
fared better than others. State borders delineated convenient administrative
districts and bore no resemblance to nations. Many former European colonies in
Africa were made trustees of the UN rather than be granted immediate
independence. For example, the UN placed Namibia under South African
trusteeship; the UN rescinded South Africas trusteeship 30 January 1970, but
South Africa remained, and a war of independence ensued.
More violent than some, Angolas post- WWII history followed a common
pattern. The Portugese had been involved in the region since 1482. The
Portugese brought guns and Christianity, and an African king provided slaves
and raw materials for export. The Dutch occupied Angola briefly (1641-1648)
but Angola became a Portugese colony in 1655.
Militant anti-colonial parties began to form in the late 1940s. Two merged
into the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola ( MPLA) in December
1956 under Agostinho Neto. Another two merged into the National Liberation
Front of Angola (FNLA) in March 1962 under Holden Roberto. Jonas Savimbi split
from the FNLA to form the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola
(UNITA) in 1964. Revolts against colonial rule erupted in the early 1960s and
were brutally repressed in a long counterinsurgency effort waged by Portugese
Armed Forces. The Angolan War of Independence (1961-1975) was not won in
Angola. The Portugese government was engaged in multiple colonial wars and
grew increasingly authoritarian at home. Leftist forces overthrew the Lisbon
government in the Carnation Revolution of 24 April 1974. Angola achieved
formal independence 11 November 1975.
The Angolan Civil War (1975-2002) began even before the independence
agreement was signed as the competing factions turned on each other. Whites
fled leaving the country without experienced civil servants and professionals.
The factionsall nationalistic, populist, and left leaningpresented the
appropriate face to appeal to a chosen Cold War sponsor and became part of the
East-West competition. South Africa, seeking regional hegemony and apartheid
capitalism, invaded 23 October 1975 on the side of the FNLA and UNITA. Cuban
forces united with the MPLA to oppose the South African coalition. All of southern
Africa was engaged in one way or another.
Eastern Asia
The countries of Eastern Asia were part of a secondary, and in some cases
tertiary, theater for the United States in WWII. But the war had been devastating
for the locals, and there was a history of colonialism, civil war, and regional
competitions. Nationalism would have powerful effects.
Japan. Getting an early start on WWII, Japan established dominion over large
parts of Eastern Asia. Atrocities had been committed, and memories would be
long. The Japanese would leave China, Korea, Indochina, and Oceania and
return to Japan under American military occupation.
China. The modern day Chinese narrative includes arrival of Christian
missionaries in the 16th Century and the humiliating presence of European
powers during the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911). By the end of the 19 th century,
including two Opium Wars, China had been divided into spheres of influence by

the European powers. The United States, without its own sphere and fearing
lack of access to its commercial interests, convinced the Europeans of the Open
Door Policy. The collapse of Western empires and unequal treaties imposed on
China at the end of WWI initiated a new era. Strong nationalist sentiments and
rebellion was accompanied by the spread of Marxist-Leninist ideology.
The long civil war in China (1927-1937), pitting Western-supported
nationalists against Soviet-supported communists, was disrupted. The two
factions continued fighting each other and simultaneously posed a unified front
against Japanese invaders. The civil war resumed (1946-1950) with renewed
vigor after Japanese defeat in WWII. Nationalist forces led by Chiang Kai-shek
retreated to the island of Taiwan (Formosa) and formed the Republic of China
(ROC). Communists led by Mao Zedong established the Peoples Republic of
China (PRC) on the mainland. The West and the UN recognized the ROC as the
legitimate government while the East recognized the PRC.
Korea. The Korean Peninsula had long been an area contested by China,
Japan, and Russia. At the end of WWII, Japanese occupation was replaced by a
partitioned Korea with a Soviet-backed communist government in the
industrialized North and a US-backed dictatorial government in the
underdeveloped South. The divided Korea would be the site of the first major
Cold War conflict.
Indochina. After the Japanese withdrew, the French returned to Indochina to
reestablish colonial prerogatives. As in Korea, Vietnam was divided north and
south, with communist support for the government in the North and French
support to the government in the South. The East and West major powers would
conduct proxy wars throughout the Cold War. The First Indochina War (19461954) quickly ensued with civil wars in Vietnam (1946-1975), Laos (1953-1975),
and Cambodia (1967-1975). Later American involvement would initiate the
Second Indochina War (1962-1975) centered in Vietnam but involving Laos and
Cambodia as well. CambodiaKampuchea under the Khmer Rougeengaged in
a period of self-mutilation (1975-1979). After unification of Vietnam under
communism, Vietnam invaded Cambodia (1975-1989), and Chinas brief punitive
invasion of Vietnam was repulsed (1979).
Palestine
Nationalism was an extremely powerful force at work in the postwar era. Two
major nationalist movements had been gaining strength during and between the
world wars. It had become clear that the promise of self determination could
only be realized if nations had states with defensible borders and institutions
that enforced the norms of the people. Arab nationalism would ultimately be
frustrated, but Jewish nationalism solidified.
Arab Nationalism. The Arab world had not adopted modern forms of
government and lacked the attendant organizational capacities. They were easy
prey for European colonizers. The First World War offered Arabs the
opportunity, the promise, of statehood after the fall of the Turkish dominated
Ottoman Empire. It was not to be as European powers filled the vacuum left by
the Ottomans. Arab nationalism would be frustrated throughout the interwar
period as Europeans denied Arab self determination. States emerged inside
colonial boundaries and national identities began to develop within these states
thus diffusing the drive toward a unified Arab state and Pan-Arabism.
Sophisticated and charismatic leaders emerged in Egypt and in non-Arab Turkey

and Iran. The region would be caught up in the Cold War competition between
the major powers of East and West.
Arab Nationalism and the Great Betrayal
Arab nationalism was rekindled in WWI. Very important components of todays ArabIslamic narrative are the events associated with the end of the Ottoman Empire after the
First World War. Three bodies of documents serve to describe this component: the
Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the Balfour
Declaration. The collective is sometimes referred to as the Great Betrayal.
Sherif Hussein, a Hashemite, was perhaps the single individual that could be
considered the Arab spokesman during the First World War. Sir Henry McMahon, British
high commissioner of Egypt, was the principal British spokesman in the Arab world. As
early as 1914, the Hussein-McMahon correspondence began encouraging an Arab
uprising against the Ottoman Turks and the promise of Arab independence after the war.
An Arab Caliphate under Hussein was a possibility. Separately, in May 1915, two small
movements, al-Fatat and al-Ahd, produced the Damascus Protocol describing their
conditions for cooperation to support the British against the Turks. The Arab uprising
began in June 1916, was led by Husseins son Feisal, and was aided by T.E. Lawrence.
The Hussein-McMahon correspondence (not a formal agreement) is often cited as the
basis of Arab understanding of the way things were supposed to be after the war.
At the same time, member of British Parliament Sir Mark Sykes and French diplomat
Charles Franois George-Picot were quietly discussing the postwar partition of the
Ottoman Empire. It would be divided between the British and the French with Russia
having the dominant role in the north. The British and French would have direct control
in some areas and indirect control in others. Semi-autonomous Arab states would be
possible where indirect European control existed. The resulting secret document is the
Sykes-Picot Agreement.
The Balfour Declarationa letter from British diplomat Arthur J. Balfour to the head
of the British Zionist Organization Lord Rothschild in November 1917indicated the
British governments positive view toward a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Palestine was
at the time an undefined area. A condition of the new homeland would be that the rights
of the non-Jewish community would not be prejudiced.
The entirety is often evoked as Sykes-Picot, and has the connotation of white man
speaks with forked tongue. It represents past betrayal and predicts future betrayal
associated with the Western alliance, which includes present-day Israel. Self
determination had been thwarted for the Arab nation, and direction of Arab history has
been determined by the West. In the future, everything the US would say and do would
be interpreted through this lens.

Jewish Nationalism. Ancient empires exiled Jews from their homeland; many
migrated across Europe. Persecution in Western Europe during the Crusades
pushed Jews to Eastern Europe. After Centuries of prosperity in Muslim Spain,
Jews were driven out during the Inquisition. The Enlightenment improved the lot
of Jews in Western Europe and simultaneously increased violent persecution in
Russia. But the persecution soon returned to Western Europe culminating in the
Holocaust. The true depth and breadth of the atrocities werent fully apparent
until wars end.
Jewish NationalismZionism
After domination by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks, most Jews were
already living in exile when the Romans banned those remaining following revolts in the
1st and 2nd centuries. The Roman province of Judea was renamed Palestine. Forced
conversions took place in the Christian Byzantine Empire and in Christian France during
the second half of the first millennium.

Jews prospered in Muslim Spain, centered in Cordoba, for four centuries, but
following the defeat of the Moors in the 13 th century the Spanish Inquisition targeted
Jews and Muslims, driving out non-Christian influences completing the Christian
Reconquest. Jews converted to Christianity in large numbers and were later put to death
as the Spanish Inquisition strengthened in pursuit of Christian purity (1391). Later the
Catholic Monarchs (Isabella and Ferdinand) signed an edict for Jews (1492) and Muslims
(1501) to convert, leave, or be put to death. In northern Europe, Jews and Muslims were
massacred during the Crusades (1095-1291). Jews were expelled from England in the
late 13th century and from France in the 14th century.
The French Revolution (1789-1799) abruptly ended the ancien rgimepolitical
domination by the monarchy, aristocracy, and the established church. Emancipation of
the Jews began in France (1791) and spread across Europe throughout the 19th century.
Assimilation into local societies became an increasingly popular solution for many Jews.
But scapegoating Jews increased after the financial crises that followed the FrancoPrussian War (1870-1871) and the failure of the Panama Canal Investment Company in
the middle 1880s.
The assassination of the Russian tsar (1881) punctuated the growing divide between
Eastern and Western Europe. Jews were scapegoated for a variety of economic and
social ills, many associated with liberalization and capitalism in Western Europe. By the
end of the 19th century, state-led or state-allowed persecution of Russian Jews fueled a
growing desire to return to their biblical home.
The First Aliya (1882-1903) doubled the Jewish population in Palestine. A British
proposal to establish a Jewish homeland in Uganda was rejected (1903). Another wave of
emigration accompanied the failed Russian revolution (1904-1905). Those who could
afford it dispersed to the Western Hemisphere or into the British Empire. Others
migrated to Western Europe. Some went to Palestine in the Second Aliya (1904-1914).
In accordance with the Balfour Declaration (1917), the League of Nations established
the Palestinian Mandate under British auspices after their defeat of the Ottomans. The
Mandate included establishment of the institutions of state and of a Jewish homeland
with civil rights protections regardless of religion or race. The Third Aliya (1919-1923)
and Fourth Aliya (1924-1929) were also out of Eastern Europe. As Jewish immigration
increased under British authority, riots by indigenous Arabs erupted in the 1920s
causing the British to place restrictions on further Jewish immigration. The Fifth Aliya
(1929-1939) was driven by the increasing anti-Semitism associated with Nazism and the
pursuit of ethnic purity. The British White Paper (1939) further restricted Jewish
immigration to Palestine.

Jews benefited from the 18 th century Enlightenment and liberalization in

Western Europe, but the Dreyfus Affair dashed the hopes even of the most
assimilated Jew, like Theodor Herzl. French Army Captain Alfred Dreyfus, falsely
accused in 1894 of spying for Germany, was convicted and later vindicated.
Herzl, having covered the Dreyfus Affair as a journalist, became convinced that
assimilation was impossible and that anti-Semitism would not die. He wrote Der
Judenstaat (The Jewish State) in 1896. Herzl became the tireless promoter of a
Jewish state and the father of modern Zionism.
Before WWI, the great majority of the worlds Jews lived in Europe, about 50
percent in Poland, and only .2 percent lived in Palestine. About 2 percent of the
population in Palestine was Jewish and about 10 percent Christian; the majority
Arab population was Sunni Muslim. Arabs and Jews, both Semitic peoples, cooccupied Palestine in peace. European colonial exploitation of Arab lands and
European treatment of Jews led Jewish and Arab nationalists to consider alliance
and common cause in their pursuit of self determination. By the end of WWII, the
Palestinian population was about 58 percent Muslim, 33 percent Jew, and 8
percent Christian.

As Jews were pushed from one part of Europe to another, the longing grew
for a state of their own. The problem was centered in Europe, often the product
of an anti-Jewish (and anti-Muslim) interpretation of Christianity and sometimes
the product of the related phenomenon of nationalism. It resulted in the
sustained migration of Jews bringing a modern, 20 th century European culture
into a land occupied by a society with a traditional culture. The solution to a
problem created by Europeans would be establishment of a Jewish state that
displaced innocent Palestinian Arabs. The Palestinian issue would be one of the
first and most complex faced by the new United Nations. By 2010, the United
Nations would minister to 4.7 million registered Palestinian refugees.
Western, Central, and Southern Asia
The collapse of the Ottoman Empire left a vacuum in Western, Central, and
Southern Asia. The importance of oil in industrial-age warfare increased the
significance of the region to the great powers. Nationalism would be prominent
in the region as it struggled for independence and experimented with new
methods of social organization.
Oil in the World Wars. The two world wars epitomize industrial-age warfare.
The United States was the worlds leading oil producer and was the principal
supplier of oil to the Allied armies. But US resources were finite and it was
abundantly clear that Middle Eastern oil would play a critical role in economic
recovery of the industrial powers devastated by war, and oil would be a strategic
resource should another war erupt.
Oil in the World Wars
With WWI developing, in 1903, British Foreign Secretary Lord Landsdowne warned
Russia and Germany that Britain would regard the establishment of a naval base or of a
fortified port in the Persian Gulf by any other power as a very grave menace to British
interests, and we should certainly resist with all the means at our disposal.
Petroleum was critical to the industrial-age armies of WWII. Great Britain and the
Soviet Union invaded Iran in 1941 to prevent Irans railroads and oil from falling to Axis
Powers. As the worlds leading oil producer, the United States supplied most of the oil
for Allied armies. But US resources were not infinite, and positive relations with Saudi
Arabia became a strategic necessity. On 16 February 1943, FDR said, the defense of
Saudi Arabia is vital to the defense of the United States.
These, in a small way, establish the initial conditions for competition for oil in the
Middle East throughout the Cold War. Western business interests continued to dominate
the oil industries, including profits, in the Middle East. Western powers would support
pro-Western Middle Eastern governments. Oil would flow freely and cheaply to the
industrialized West. Threats to the status quo were seen as threats to national and
international security. Threats would come from Soviet expansion and from the local
forces of nationalism and a desire for self determination after a long period of European
colonialism.

Iranian Revolutions. Persia is an ancient and sophisticated civilization dating

back two and a half millennia. Arabs successfully brought Islam to Persia
between the 7th and 9th centuries but never made it Arab. Persia became an
independent state in 1501. The Enlightenment and the industrial revolution
rapidly transformed European political and economic systems by the end of the
19th century. Persian political factions forced the shah to adopt a European-like
constitution with monarch and elected parliament in 1906.

The competition between progressive constitutionalists and conservative

monarchists continued. Russia and Great Britain continued their great power
interventions throughout the First World War. After WWI a charismatic leader
ascended to the throne and pursued the progressive agenda with a heavy hand.
(The shah asked foreign diplomats to use the name Iran rather than Persia.)
American and German neutrality won favor. Growing trade between Iran and
Germany gave Great Britain and the Soviet Union a reason to intervene to
prevent Iranian oil from supplying Germany. The United States later operated in
Iran to supply the Soviet Union during the war. Great Britain and the United
States withdrew at wars end as promised, but the Soviet Union required
encouragement.
The Iranian Revolutions
Persias Constitutional Revolution took place between 1906 and 1911. Mozafar al-Din
Shah Qajar, who had ascended to the throne in June 1896, was forced by
revolutionaries to adopt a constitution and elect a parliament on 5 August 1906. It
replaced a weak, centralized, and corrupt government with a constitutional
monarchy, both preserving the shah and establishing an elected parliament, the
Majlis (the Peoples House). The constitution, modeled on the Belgian constitution,
provided for the rule of law, equality, individual rights, universal public education,
and freedom of the press. After the shahs death, his son, Mohammad Ali, ascended
21 June 1907. He secured large loans from Great Britain and Russia, ceding
considerable influence. Iranian politics was divided internally by progressive
constitutionalists and conservative monarchists.
The British and Russians announced a pact on 7 September 1907. They backed
the shah and geographically divided the country between them. By dividing the
country, they unified the Iranian factions. Great Britain and Russia intervened.
Russian Cossaks stormed the parliament 23 June 1908 initiating a civil war. Christian
missionaries pressured US politicians to respond with tough action, but Presidents
Teddy Roosevelt and William Taft maintained a policy of neutrality. The revolution
ended in 1911 and Iranian constitutionalists turned to the noninterventionist United
States for assistance and Germany for trade. Relations between Iran and the United
States would continue on favorable terms for 35 years.
After WWI and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey successfully
transitioned to a secular government committed to modernization. Iran attempted a
similar transition but with less success. Reza Khan overthrew the last shah of the
Qajar Dynasty and ascended to the throne in 1925 and began the Pahlavi Dynasty.
His rule was sectarian and authoritarian. He was a strong nationalist, particularly
opposed to Russian and British influence. He initiated industrial expansion, railroad
building, and an educational system. Western dress was required, the veil was
prohibited, and Jews were emancipated from the ghettos.
To prevent Irans railroads and oil from falling to the WWII Axis Powers, Great
Britain and the Soviet Union invaded Iran in 1941 with a promise to leave at wars
end. But the Soviets remained until Iran successfully out maneuvered them
politically. President Truman provided strong support for Soviet withdrawal. And US
neutrality paid dividends again.
Reza Shah Pahlavi was ousted in 1941 and replaced with his son, Mohammed
Reza Pahlavi, who was expected to be more malleable. The shahs White Revolution
(1963) was heavy-handed modernization that enflamed nationalist sentiments and
fear in traditionalists. The stage was set for the Islamic Revolution (1979).

Afghanistan. The present-day borders of the Afghan state reflect historic

great-power decisions and do not honor nations. It is bordered by Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan in the north; Pakistan on the east and south; Iran on

the west, and even a short border with China at the far east of the Hindu Kush.
The suffix stan means land of. Baluchistan, not a state, spans Iran,
Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Pashtunistan, also not a state, lies equally in
Afghanistan and Pakistan. The border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, the
Durand Line, was drawn down the middle of Pashtunland (1893) as part of the
Great Game between Great Britain and Russia.
The region was long a crossroads for traders, migrants, and armies with
diverse ethnic and religious groups. It was home to Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs,
and Zoroastrians before Arabs brought Islam to the region (642-870) soon after
the religions establishment. Islam brought the first unity to the various ethnic
groups of the region. The great majority of Afghans are Sunni.
The Great Game
The Great Game (1813-1907) was a strategic competition between Czarist Russia and
Great Britain over Central Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. It was apparently more of a
preoccupation of the British in defense of India, the Empires crown jewel. The contest
was centered in Afghanistan but involved the larger region.
The Durand Line was drawn to demarcate British and Russian spheres of influence in
1893. Convenient to the great powers, the linelike many drawn by outside powers
was not drawn with respect to nations (peoples). Here, Pashtuns had their land divided
between Afghanistan and what later became Pakistan.
After WWII, as the British relinquished colonial authorities, the British Indian Empire
was hastily divided into a Muslim state and a Hindu-majority secular state by the
Radcliffe Line. The 1947 Partition created India and the divided state of East and West
Pakistan separated by several hundred miles. East Pakistan became independent
Bangladesh in 1971. Border disputes continue to plague Paki-Hindi relations.

Pashtuns, an Iranic people, comprise over 40 percent of the Afghan

population. Ahmad Shah Durrani first unified the Pashtun tribes (early 18 th
century). At its peak, the Durrani, or Afghan, Empire (1747-1826) included all of
todays Afghanistan and Pakistan and extended into neighboring Persia and
India. Pashtuns, the majority in Afghanistan, constitute a major ethnic group in
Pakistan and a minor presence in Iran. Unified Afghanistan was ethnically
Pashtun and religiously Sunni Muslim.
Properly speaking, Pashtuns are the true ethnic Afghans. Other groups retain
their ethnic identities, but they identify first as Afghans. Tajiks are Persian
speaking and comprise over 25 percent of the Afghan population, and they are
dominant in Tajikistan to the north. Uzbeks and Turkmen, Turkic peoples, are
dominant in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan to the north but constitute less than
10 percent of the Afghan population. Many fled in the 1920s from Russian
religious suppression. Hazaras are a Persian-speaking minority of less than 10
percent living mostly in central Afghanistan, but there is a sizable presence in
Pakistan. Hazaras are Shia Muslims and have been brutally repressed by
Pashtuns (18th, 19th, and 20th centuries) earlier for ethnic and later for religious
differences. Baluchs, also an Iranic people, constitute a small minority.