Beyond balancing? Intrastate conflict and US grand strategy

Abstract

Grand strategic theorists share an historical emphasis on interstate conflict. However, of some two hundred and seventy-three US military deployments since 1900, only seven were interstate conflicts. The rest were intrastate, domestic level engagements. We argue that these intrastate conflicts limit the utility of regional balances of power in mitigating forms of conflict that the US may consider inimical to its national security interests. When considering potential changes to US force posture and grand strategy, American coercive statecraft should be theorised along a broader strategic continuum encompassing the full range of conflict.