Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Vägval för U.S. Grand Strategy efter 11 September
Swedish National Defence College.
2002 (Swedish)Student paper otherStudent thesis
Abstract [sv]

I uppsatsen presenterar författaren hur US Grand Strategy förändrats som en följd avterrorattackerna mot USA den 11 september 2001. Författaren pekar vidare påalternativa utvecklingsmöjligheter för US Grand Strategy och prövar om traditionellaanalysmodeller fortfarande är tillämpliga för att beskriva vägval för amerikanskutrikes och säkerhetspolitik.

Abstract [en]

This essay aims to highlight possible developments for US Grand Strategy, as a resultof the terror events occurring September 11 2001. To reach this aim I am going topresent how US Grand Strategy has developed since September 11, and I also goingto present the strategy existing today. The aim is also to see if traditional analyticmodelsstill are working to demonstrate alternative US Grand Strategies.The empirical materials that are used in this essay are mostly speeches and documentsfrom people, who are representing the official US foreign and security-policy.For the analytic part in the essay, I have used two different analytic-models todescribe changes in US Grand Strategy. The first one is a model that Alexander Nachthas developed, and that one is described in the summer edition 1995 of WashingtonQuarterly. The second model is the one by Lars Maddox, which are described in “USGrand strategy Alternatives – After the Cold War”.I can establish the fact that US grand Strategy has changed since the attacks againstUS occurred September 11. The strategy today is more firm and unilateral in itscharacter, compared to the strategy dominated the period before September 11, andalso if we compares it with the Clinton-administration strategy.I establish the fact that there is more than one possible way for US grand Strategy todevelop. The development is very depended of how the scenario in the rest of theworld is developing, and especially how the crisis in the Middle East is going todevelop. The most likely as I see it is that US are going to draw nearer to a moremultilateral approach than the approach existing today.Multilateral organizations, coalition-partners and allies are the best and most longtermsolution to increase safety for US.I also notice that the existing analytic-models still are function to describe alternativechoices for US Grand strategies. But there is a need to develop those models, so theybetter mirror and describe the complex world, which foreign and security-policy iscomposed of.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2002. , 89 p.
Keyword [sv]
USA, Utrikespolitik, Säkerhetspolitik, Terrorism, Uppsatser, Chefsprogrammet, Chefsprogrammet 2000-2002
National Category
Social Sciences
URN: urn:nbn:se:fhs:diva-1865OAI: diva2:429259
Educational program
Chefsprogrammet. (ChP)
Social and Behavioural Science, Law
Avdelning: ALB - Slutet Mag 3 C-upps. Hylla: Upps. ChP 00-02Available from: 2011-07-05 Created: 2011-07-04 Last updated: 2011-07-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(700 kB)