Why Isn't There a Debate about America's Grand Strategy?

We have a strategy. If anyone messes with us.......they get a stupid nickname and a harshly worded tweet.

Interesting article, and excellent question that needs a clear answer.

The article’s title “Grand Strategy” seems a little too grandiose and indeed a little disturbing.

What is the author, Christopher Preble, suggesting? A debate within Congress? There are debates there almost every day, in numerous committees and on the House and Senate floors.

Presidential candidates debate each other, with some of the most interesting clashes focused on national security issues.

If referring to our National Security Strategy, the periodic development of the National Security Strategy does incorporate debate, give and take. Look back to the National Security Strategy documents produced in 2002, 2006, 2010, and 2015.

In theory, the National Military Strategy is derived from the National Security Strategy. In my experience, the NMS is informed by the NSS, with some give and take and exchanges of concepts between the two.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/06/fact-sheet-2015-national-security-strategy

So….what was our nation’s grand strategy, or should have been the grand strategy, in the 1950’s and early 1960’s related to Viet Nam?

To promote democracy, human rights, and equality?

Does that strategy (or universal value) not lead our leaders down the path to the Domino theory and blocking the growth of communism?

How can we, as a nation, based on the ideals and universal concepts articulated in our Constitution’s preamble, NOT promote democracy, human rights, and equality?

Would a “Grand Strategy debate” really impact an “Authorization for Use of Military Force” debate? Or would it, rather, keep academics and think tanks employed in providing point/counterpoint and supporting words and phrases to politicians engaged in that debate.

No, I suggest getting the National Security Strategy and the National Military Strategy as close to right, and the associated debates in developing the National Defense Authorization Act, are good enough for now and should be the first priority.