I think that's a great idea with a lot of merit to it. I would only add to it the Declaration of Independence. All you need to do is look at all of the Declarations and Constitutions internationally in the past 200 years that are blatant ripoffs of our own to recognize the importance of our founding documents. If you read Abraham Lincoln's speeches through his career, he would agree with the idea that American grand strategy is totally dependent on internal politics. The "last, best hope of earth" idea appears in his oratory a few times. Good quote at the end, too.

RD’s comments are logical, in tune with the country’s basic principles, and probably would be more tactically effective in fighting terrorism. They are also completely unacceptable to the right-wing tea party style demagogues who delight in defining American national security interests through the warped lens of their crackpot ideology.

are you serious, anonymous10? if you really want to go back to the world of upton sinclair's The Jungle then by all means continue your archaic crusade. If not, I'd get with the program and realize that industrial society requires big government. sorry to ruin your party, but glenn beck is not a prophetic thinker, and Calvin Coolidge wasn't a great President. Even though your proposed law is absurd (a redundant repetition of the court system's prerogative) all Congress would have to do is cite the commerce clause. Maybe the Founding Fathers didn't know about cars, but they wrote what they wrote about that damned interstate commerce. SORRY!

Mr. Lewis expresses a lovely sentiment. What does it mean?

Mr. Byron hints at the idea that nothing could be worse than the way we are fighting terrorism now; why not accept a few terrorist attacks on American soil, bury the dead and keep our chins up, and hope our moral force forces terrorism to wither away. The question is how long he expects that idea would last after a second 9/11, or even a less serious strike against civilians?

Inertia is the most powerful force in human affairs, and I'm afraid the United States generated powerful inertia behind Islamist terrorism when it invaded Iraq and then tread water there for years. One could argue the Iraq war was about fighting terrorists there so we wouldn't have to fight them here; a prominent advocate of the war made precisely that argument on more than one occasion. However, given that the argument was in that instance completely wrong -- Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and the terrorists who fought us there would not have done so had we not invaded the place -- I'm not sure the results it produced tell us very much about the merits of fighting genuine international terrorists and their known sponsors overseas as opposed to letting them hit us and seeing whether that gets terrorism out of their system.

Please. What a completely stupid term.

The problem we have with the US military is that it is competent, ready, and obedient. Take that hill? Can do easy? Invade Iraq? Say the word. Screw around in Afghanistan for years and decades? Hey, sounds like a promotion circus - of course we will.

But. But applying a military solution to a political problem usually leaves the political problem unsolved or even, as in our two current wars, metastasized into an even bigger political problem. Somehow we've morphed a desire to protect the homeland into a desire to reshape a global culture. Maybe the right (and strategic) thing to do now is back off on global do-good-ism and concentrate on Mission One, protecting the homeland. The tools for that may better come from the law-enforcement/intel side of things than the blow-'em-up military approach. It's a strategic issue that we've managed to muffle. Thus I raise it as a binary choice.

You know Colin Powell is an interesting guy who in a city of mouth foaming lunatics is a rational breath of fresh air. The quote you use is a reflection of that wisdom and reflection Powell is renown for. However, when he had the chance to speak up and stand by his principles as Sec. of State (2001-2005) he chose not to do so. He in fact allowed his good name to be besmirched by wittingly become a co-conspirator in the invasion of Iraq based upon Bush and Cheney’s manipulative bullshit. He also stood aside while Afghanistan degenerated into the mess it is today. Like many military types he is likely physically very brave and would lead his men into the teeth of hell but when it comes to moral courage the perks of office look more attractive.

My Constitutional contract is guarded by the vote, which relies on the information, provided chiefly by the... contractor?

According to practitioners, military and diplomatic classification is used chiefly to keep embarrassing and incriminating information from threatening the power of officeholders and continuance of rice-bowl policies. A congressman whose knowledge and activity is restricted to fundraising and the practice of incumbency is worse than useless.
--
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. "

"He who knows best knows how little he knows."

"How much pain they have cost us, the evils which have never happened."

"Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper. "
Thomas Jefferson

Some thoughts: We do have a national documents that lay out the strategy, specifically the NSS. Lack of a grand-strategy that can last more than 8 years is a result of our democratic system, you could even argue that our strategic direction changes every two years. I would also say, if you read current and former NSS documents, they really don't change all too much. Strategy must always be reassessed and adjusted (which compliments our democratic system). Without changes and evaluation, you have a flawed strategy (See Strategic NET Assessment), even the constitution has changed as necessary with the amendments.
If you want long term planning, look at the wonderful job the Chinese and Soviets did in their plans.
-On the founding fathers, before people you say the intentions, be sure to specify whose...Those of Hamilton, Adams, and Washington were much different than those of Jefferson and Madison. This whole large/small governement argument has been going on for over 200 years.

I love the idea of the Constitution as grand strategy.

But there is a real problem with the fight them over here vs there strategy. That problem is that our sheep don't care for sheepdogs. They sure as hell don't want them patrolling the streets of America. Of course there is the small but significant matter of posse comitatus too.

Our sheep are also quite proud to see their military sheepdogs go off and do dirty business half a world away - as long as they don't have to worry too much about it. Mustn't get in the way of our American Idol results, please.

If we pulled back in isolationist fashion it would necessitate a beefing up of our Homeland defense that I think most sheep would feel quite uncomfortable with. You need only look to the hew and cry over Arizona's anti-immigrant measures to see a taste of what would come if we were to go on the defense. Every security measure would violate some civili right or offend some subset of the population.

Also take as an example the notorious stupidity and ineffectiveness of just one example of our Homeland Defense force, the TSA, whose bright bulb policies have countered our dangerous shoes (after the fact) and shampoo bottles (after the fact) and are working on the underwear issues (after the fact) and couldn't catch the Times Square bomber until...you guessed it after the fact.

I'd love to not have to employ our wonderful military force - might save me from a future deployment - just not sure it is in the realm of the possible.

This is an argument that I think most self-described realists in academic international relations would agree with, though they would probably say the imperative comes from the logic of international politics, not from anything necessarily exceptional about the United States.

I vaciliating between brilliant and cop-out on the point that the constitution is a grand strategy document. In some ways, it is really insightful. Empires are really just cabals of rich men banding together to take more land and resources to make themselves richer. The republic, by defining itself as by, of, and for the people, creates an imperative to take care of one's own, since they get a vote, rather than use them as cannon fodder to enrich the elite. Therefore, our foreign policy is to preserve those principles. How best to do that, isolation vs. engagement, etc. is a matter of policy.
But really, when you are speaking on that kind of ontological level, it's a bit of a cop-out. Yes, a democratic nation has different imperatives than an empire, but that leaves the door wide open on what strategy to employ to achieve those imperatives. Those policy decisions about isolation vs. engagement are what grand strategy is all about!
Perhaps he means that as a democracy we are doomed to continuously debate our grand strategy since no cabal will ever stay permanently in power and public opinion evolves over time. But really, that gives us the flexibility to change our strategy, and therefore outlast the rigid old empires.

Get your hands on: Michael J. Boyle, "Do Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency Go Together?" International Affairs, Volume 86 Issue 2 (March 2010).

The primary reason why the Afghan conflict is going on for so long is that they are allowed a safe haven in the Waziristans. But, after 8 years, the Pakistani government has finally gone into South Waziristan and are doing a fairly good job there. When they finally decide that they need to go into North Waziristan then the major unmolested bases for gihadists will be removed. It will surprise the doomsayers that we'll turn the corner (as we did in Iraq) and that attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan will significantly diminish within the following year. Give it another couple years of time and the Afghan and Pakistani governments will have fairly strong presence throughout their countries and we've found, hopefully, a long-term solution.