What are the advantages and disadvantages of these grand strategies?

Both had their advantages and limitation. Symmetrical offers protection against incremental threats . On the negative side, the enemy has the advantage In terms of time, place, scope and duration of the challenge. Also, It makes foreign policy appear immature and unable to differentiate between core and secondary interests. Asymmetrical not all challenges have to be met and one can deal from strength in meeting them. On the negative side, it requires picking and choosing what positions to defend and which not to. Also, asymmetrical containment risks being perceived as unprincipled, weak and inviting challenges. Gaddis also wrote about the “tyranny of means” which drove policy makers away from symmetrical containment when the budgetary implications of large-scale defense spending became dangerous and allowed them to embrace it when the costs could be borne without setting off an inflationary spiral, raising the deficit, or requiring new taxes. George W. Bush’s initial response to 9/11 was symmetrical. The war against terrorism was global. United States sent antiterrorist military aid to fight terrorist groups in Indonesia, Philippines, Georgia and Central Asia. Iraq War – it was a logical extension of a symmetrical response to terrorism and an application of preemption given the administration’s twin arguments that links existed between Iraq and al-Qaeda and that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destructions. This strategy has begun to raise questions about its costs foreshadowing a movement toward an asymmetrical response to terrorism.

The post What are the advantages and disadvantages of these grand strategies? appeared first on interaksyonph.