A. Wess Mitchell
The country’s new defense strategy envisioned a dramatic shakeup. It prioritized the homeland and repositioned forces that had patrolled distant frontiers for nearly a century. It handed the task of securing farther-flung defensive perimeters to allies, many of which appeared unprepared to take on the burden. Establishment experts were appalled. Hawks warned that the new strategy would embolden adversaries and advocated for the old approach of being strong everywhere at once.
The year was 1904, and the country was the United Kingdom. It faced a dilemma broadly similar to the one the United States now confronts. Its empire was the world’s strongest power. Its navy had more warships than the next two largest navies combined. But its strategic situation was deteriorating. Britain’s economic primacy was beginning to slip as rising powers surpassed it in industrial production. Imperial Germany was building a blue-water fleet. France and Russia were mounting fresh challenges to British power in Africa and Asia. The United States and Japan, new rivals, were pursuing dominance over their regions. British leaders had a choice: they could keep trying to outgun all these competitors or try something new.
No comments:
Post a Comment