RAND_MR1382

Figure 10.1—The Two Axes of Strategy
These dual axes frame the range of alternative strategies that states use in dealing with
each other. Over time, the United States has used them all, often in hybrid blends. For
example, during the cold war era, U.S. strategy revolved mainly around the hard-power
axis, with emphasis on containing the Soviet Union and strengthening the NATO
alliance. Lines were drawn around the world; actors were obliged to take sides. In
today’s loose, multipolar world, however, the soft-power axis is more in play. It is now
feasible just to shun some states that once required rising degrees of containment (e.g.,
Cuba). Much of U.S. strategy is now more intent on using soft-power measures to
exposit our standards and to attract a target (e.g., like Vietnam) into affiliation with us.
Meanwhile, some states, such as Mexico and Canada, have long been subjected to a
broad array of alternative strategies—depending on the times and the issues, the United
States has ignored and beckoned, supported and even cautiously opposed our neighbors
on occasion.
Nonstate actors of all types—especially the kinds of civil and uncivil actors analyzed in
this volume—are now so powerful around the world that they cannot be dismissed by
national security strategists. As strategists increasingly turn to address them,
particularly the ones intent on netwar, this dual-axis perspective on strategy seems
likely to frame the options usefully, with each having different implications for the
future of netwar.
Each strategy has its merits, but also its costs and risks. For example, trying to stamp
out criminal networks—the preferred strategy of the international community today—
entails a heavy investment, including the cost involved in trying to achieve a level of