Another left of field way (not in the political sense but in the “different but can help” way) is NGO’s. Some of which are superb in their grasp of local knowledge and their ability to put limited dollars into real outcomes, far more effectively than many (most?) ‘official’ organisations.

Humans are like dogs in many ways, but we are worse in that conflict can happen because we are poor at communication (sounds weird doesn’t it). Watch 2 dogs meeting each for the first time, a classic response is going up to each other, heckles risen but the tails wag rapidly .. signal “you can’t dominate me but I dont want to fight”. Then the sniffing and walking round each other. Eventually they settle down and then they will play or totally ignore each other. They have worked out their boundaries. Now how long does that take for humans? Boy we are so superior (ironical smile here). Plus our great imagination takes over, because we don’t communicate, we then start to imagine all sorts of weird stuff about the “other” (despite the fact we are almost exactly the same). How many people know about the great skiing in Iran?

Fortunately humans are also not very conflict oriented, proven by the amazing way we can cram into very small areas without killing each other (now if we were Kilingons or Kzinti the population would be a -lot- lower). Probably because we are so weak (an adult chimp is 3 times stronger than we are), we tend to be backstabbers, opportunistic killers, killers of the weak.

There will always be competition, but competition does not have to mean conflict. A human strength is the ability to learn from someone who is out competing you, then catch up (a US speciality by the way). Cutting the corner so to speak.

So building international cooperation, essentially forcing communication, plus good sensible laws are the way to go.

So a smart ‘Grand Strategy’, if you are confident you can compete reasonably well, is about building and strengthening these links and systems.

Keeps conflict down, we have a dispute about something then we have a forum to sort it out in (ref WTO, DOHA, Law of the Sea, etc). Oh and a lot cheaper as well in both lives and money. Stability means more investment in real things (instability mean more speculation, get a quick dollar now), yes I can invest in a 20 year project with a good chance that it will come to fruition and I’ll make some money out of it.

And yes, freedom is a key component. Now this doesn’t necessarily mean Anglo Saxon style representative ‘democracy’, just a non oppressive, listening, adaptive system (there are many designs possible). Just basic freedoms. All systems face, at times extreme perturbations, the one’s that survive are the adaptive ones. In human systems it means that there is available a pool of adaptive, creative people to do things, lead, invent, etc. If you jail (brainwash, etc) them all, then, when it all turns to custard then you are in trouble.

Because whoever is in authority today will not be able to deal with the new problems and challenges of the future, so you must have turnover in people. And you must never, ever, oppress those who have different views …. because they might not be right today, but they might be right tomorrow. Diversity IS strength, provided it has a common goal.

Take the USSR, all the people who could have saved it were dead or in jail or had sold out and given up. So it deserved to die, the fate of all non adaptive systems.

However, playing devil’s advocate, I would ask what kinds of actions or interests would be included in a “defensive” strategy? Would not access to critical resources around the globe — like oil, or copper or uranium — be considered part of a “defensive” strategy?

In an unequal world, where wealth is unequally divided, maintaining the status quo seems to those on top to be purely defensive, but to those at the bottom, it’s otherwise. As between Russia, China and the US, currently, are there any defensive actions which are not at the same time offensive?
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: maintaining good relations is perhaps the best way to obtain access to resources. After all, resources have no value unless they are sold. The relationship is symbiotic — the opposite of a zero sum game.
.
Many of our actions seem threatening to Russia, intrustions into its zone of influence (should not the Monroe Doctrine apply to them as well?).
.
As for China, the tensions are imo almost entirely one-sided. They have done nothing that threatens us, unless (as we do) the rise of competing powers is itself a threat. This attitude puts us in the position of fighting the future, the inevitable future. That is one of the few guaranteed to lose strategies.
.
Minding our own business is defensive. Welcoming other nations to the club of Great Powers, assuming they act in a benign way, is defensive.

Estonia’s grand strategy is the integration into the Western community to gain security against Russian annexation that they couldn’t gain otherwise.

British grand strategy for affairs in Europa was for centuries the balance of power; to not allow a single power/alliance to gain hegemony. They achieved this by siding with the weaker alliance every time to prevent that the wannabe-hegemonic power reached the critical mass for (persisting) continental domination. The other part of the grand strategy was to keep itself protected against invasion by having a strong fleet since the mid-17th century and by supporting allies with small army contingents, but lots of subsidies.

Saudi-Arabian grand strategy seems to be to avoid decisive conflicts to keep its fragile economic and social system intact. The Sauds are the keepers of the holy cities Mekka and Medina - this alone almost suffices to prevent aggression against their state. The other part of their grand strategy is to befriend the USA to master all troubles that they couldn’t master as easily on their own (and to secure a safe haven just in case they’d lose power).

The USA could easily adopt a non-aggressive and friendship-oriented grand strategy; the conditions are excellent with a very easily defensible geographic location, powerful and diverse allies/friends and so far no (other) major power forcing an arms race or invading countries.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I agree on all points.

This could be an important distinction when examining state-vs-nonstate conflict.