Introduction, and a response

I'd like to thank Stilicho for the chance to write here-- it's been a while since I've put my thoughts down, and I'm excited to be a part of the debate. I'm a youngster currently working at a defense contractor in Washington, DC. As a new cog in the military-industrial complex, I enjoy reflecting on the balance between maintaining my progressive values and understanding that all change is gradual. Is the principled view from the outside more ethical than the pragmatism it takes to effect real change? Does my compensation inherently lead towards a compromised worldview? What does it mean to call myself a 'liberal' as I take part in the greatest concentration of power in history and live in a sanitized bubble? I try to ask myself these kinds of questions when the conversation turns to drone strikes and troop levels.

I've been following this protracted debate at Ink Spots and elsewhere. On this blog, Stilicho convincingly argued that the 'grand enemy' is usually just a shortcut to a grand strategy, a shortcut that in the United States has become "a difficult thing to abandon." I'd go one step further and argue that the political structure of the United States precludes any kind of grand strategy but one focused on a grand enemy.

No matter how beautifully articulated, a grand strategy still needs to be implemented by individuals. Just as a sports team's manager needs to align a season's strategy with the aspirations of his players, a national leader must ensure that the interests of critical power brokers fall in line with the chosen grand strategy. In other words, individual incentives need to support the net effort.

Successful grand strategies include a domestic element part and parcel. Byzantium's themes relied on the ambitions of individual generals, and China's "harmonious world" line isn't much more than a caution against internal dissent. The character of the Spanish empire's growth stemmed directly from its religious and class identities, while North Korea controls its foreign policy by simply quashing all non-governmental actors. A grand strategy must reflect the realities of domestic decision-making as much as any foreign policy challenges.

The United States will never have a grand strategy without a grand enemy for the same reason we're stuck with a two-party system. In a political system that rewards binary policy positions, forces winner-takes-all politicking, and always carries the chance for a drastic change in leadership, there is simply no room for anything but the simplest, clearest, and most sloganistic grand strategy. There is hardly any mechanism within the USG that rewards the kind of subtle, long-term planning and execution required by all but the most elementary foreign policies. Can we develop outstanding bilateral relations through a tireless DoS? Sure. Do we develop and implement advanced, far-sighted military policies through the USD for Policy? Absolutely. But will we ever be able to form a meaningful grand strategy centered around anything but a clear and present danger, one so obvious that it rewards a Congressman at the ballot box? No way. That' s not how our democracy works.

Introduction

I had big plans for the first post, some profound, thoughtful statement that would launch Res Publica Belli and be a significant contribution to human knowledge.  I was coming up short on that account, so I figured I should just lay out a few things about myself and the blog in general.

1. The blog has been founded to cover a range of topics, but all focused primarily around a core of international security issues. In fairness, that could include everything from political violence to climate change, but RPB will be most concerned with topics such as counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, grand strategy, and defense policy.  These constitute my primary interests, and my areas of specialty, but the beauty of a blog is the ability to occasionally stray into topics of limited knowledge but big opinions. I reserve the right to do so, and consider this a fair warning.
2. Bona fides: I have a graduate degree in international security with a specialty in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, and currently work in the defense industry in Washington, DC.  I've chosen to hide behind a Latinate pseudonym (for anyone wondering, I chose Stilicho because it seemed to fit the theme of the blog and I've been interested in the man since reading about him as a kid), and will remain there for the foreseeable future. Cowardly, I know, but for the moment it seems the best way to be able to air my opinions without worrying about folks at work or in the general public. Oh, and I don't know much Latin, just thought the title seemed to fit--and had the added bonus of being a bit of play off of the big guns over at Kings of War, so apologies to any classicists I've insulted (and feel free to suggest revision).
3. I'm not sure what the readership of the blog will be, but I'm hoping that if you do stop by that you'll comment. There's something to be said for screaming opinions into the great void, but the true awesomeness of a blog is the conversation that they can spark.  If I just loved to read my own writing--don't get me wrong, I'm vain enough to enjoy it from time to time--I'd keep a diary rather than a blog.

Hopefully this cleared somethings up about the purpose of the blog and yours truly.  I apologize in advance for any offense caused or mistakes I make, and I look forward to our future conversations.