Competing Visions for US Grand Strategy in Cyberspace

Abstract

Cyberspace is a primary battleground of the twenty-first century. Yet, grand strategists have been slow to address cyber strategy. We examine the implications of four prominent American grand strategies—restraint, deep engagement, liberal internationalism, and conservative primacy—for core topics in cyber strategy. Several unique features of cyberspace, including its nonviolent effects, pervasive secrecy, and the challenges of global governance, generate counterintuitive implications. For example, advocates of restraint, usually skeptical of conventional military force, should be more comfortable wielding cyber power, generating surprising convergences with conservative primacy. Conversely, liberal internationalists place importance on legitimating the use of force, rendering them more cautious than even proponents of the "restraint" strategy. We also briefly explore two newer grand strategies—progressivism and conservative populism—in order to show how our framework applies to emerging debates. Our approach can also help analyze how grand strategies extend to other emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence.