Having written a great deal about Grand Strategy at CNAS, it isn't surprising to hear the OSD's Policy Chief talking about it in her current role. I am much more interested in someone who cares about the content of the strategy than what we call it.

This isn't a strategy. Rule of law, multilateralism and hybrid warfare? Multilateralism is supposed to be a means to an end - not the end itself. The bottom line is still supposed to be America's national interest.

And if we sign up for the ICC, say, over the objections of the majority of the American people, how is that not putting the desires of other countries above the interests of the people you represent? Should we be getting something in return for this multilaterlism? Maybe some support in Afghanistan? Obama has gone around the world apologizing endlessly for America, bowing to the Saudi king, yucking it up with Chavez after Chavez give4s him a book about imperialist Yanquis, offering to "reset" relations with Russia (who has been laughing all the way to the bank for the last 3 months) and guaranteeing that we'll be good friends in the future, and he gets 35 Belgians for Afghanistan in return? Seems to me our cost/benefit ratios are way off kilter.

You can also believe in American exceptionalism and still accept the exceptional responsibility America has in how it acts, including on the rule of law. In fact, the earliest believers of American exceptionalism - the Puritans - made this point in a more generic sense - the sort of "to whom much is given, much is expected" Peter Parker rule.

Consider Winthrop's Model of Christian Charity:

"We must consider that we shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us; so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us...we shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whether we are going."

or Peter Bulkeley:

"And thou, New England, which art exalted in priveleges of the Gospel above many other people, know thou the time of thy visitation, and consider the great things the Lord hath done for thee...The more thou hast committed unto thee, the more thou must account for. No people's account will be heavier than thine, if thou do not walk worthier of the means of they salvation. The Lord looks for more from thee, than from other people."

You can strip away all the religious language if you want, but the point is still the same. Americans, and America, have a responsibility. Throughout history, those who have pushed American exceptionalism have also made note of this very same responsibility.

Last week, I think at a CSIS event, Flournoy made a big deal about how ideology would not play a role in our defense policy. The fact that she even made that comment, and her other comments, however, prove this to be a load of hooey.

Sounds like well-rehearsed academic cant one hears in a first-year IR survey to me. But if it floats the big brass boat, great I guess.

You could even say it was thinking this before. See the Oct 07 Maritime Strategy (co-signed with the Marines and Coast Guard). http://www.navy.mil/maritime/MaritimeStrategy.pdf

Not a perfect document by any means, and it has its critics for it being too high-level and not specific enough about things like numbers of ships, etc., but the thinking behind it and behind some of Flournoy's statements seem to be in alignment. Not saying one begat the other; just that the parallels are interesting.