Broadening U.S. Grand Strategy Beyond Afghanistan

Zelleke and Dujarric argue that U.S. planning for Afghanistan must be nested within a broader grand‐strategy framework, not limited to counter‐Taliban objectives or Al Qaeda disruption. They warn that an Afghan surge, even if militarily “successful,” risks only incremental gains against terrorist networks and could divert resources from higher‐priority global challenges like nuclear deterrence and rising economic competitors.

The authors recommend three guiding principles: 1) Escalation should deliver dramatic strategic benefits, not marginal ones; 2) Opportunity costs—what the U.S. forsakes elsewhere—must factor into theater decisions; and 3) Policymakers must resist the “must‐win” rhetoric that traps them in decade‐long commitments. Only by subordinating theater campaigns to overarching national interests can the U.S. avoid overextension and preserve flexibility in its global agenda.