| dc.description.abstract | The goal and intention behind this thesis was analyzing U.S. grand strategy from 1993-2015. What I really wanted to find out was whether a change in presidency would mean a significant strategy change for the U.S or if the strategy would remain unchanged. This study finds that while there are some smaller changes, the strategy has remained relatively constant during the entire period. The study uses a slightly modified version of offensive realism theory, called “robust” offensive realism and extra regional hegemonic theory to explain state behavior. I then use grand strategy theory to determine the different ideals for states grand strategy. The analysis is done in three stages; the first being relative indicators of powers between the U.S and its allies and rivals. The second stage is an analysis of 7 “National Security Strategy Reports”, one from each presidential administration in the period. The third and final stage is an analysis of American involvement in conflicts, as well as an overview of American military personnel stationed abroad. While especially the third and last stage of the study shows that U.S. Grand strategy has some elements of what is called a cooperative security type of grand strategy, the study concludes that U.S. grand strategy is closest to what is called a primacy type of strategy. This is in short, a hegemonic type of grand strategy which wants to maintain the U.S. as the world’s sole superpower. Perhaps the most interesting of the findings in this study is the fact that this strategy seems to stay rather un-changed throughout the entire period; the strategy remains in both democratic and republican administrations. The rhetoric’s might differ, but U.S. grand strategy remains fairly constant in the entire period. | nb_NO |
