Power and Principle: Liberalism in U.S. Grand Strategy

Was U.S. dominance built on power—or persuasion? This case study argues liberal ideology, not realism, was decisive in shaping post-1945 American hegemony.

26/03/2026

> 30 min

While the horizons of strategy is bounded by the war, grand strategy looks beyond the war to the subsequent peace. It should not only combine the various instruments, but so regulate their use as to avoid damage to the future state of peace – for its security and prosperity

Liddell Hart¹

A case study essay on – “The United States’ liberal ideological approach to grand strategy was the most important factor in its post-1945 hegemonic ascendance.”

Introduction

The aftermath of the Second World War (WWII) provided a dynamic landscape that would see the emergence of a geo-political contest for supremacy in the form of the Cold War. As imperial Britain and other European Nations powers waned, the United States (U.S.) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) battled it out on the global stage for hegemonic dominance based upon fundamentally differing ideations.² Ultimately, the U.S. would succeed whilst the USSR disintegrated, paving the way for ‘a historically novel political formation’ and a new, rules-based international world order under American unipolarity.³ To set the conditions for success, following the end of WWII, the U.S. utilised grand strategy that combined a liberal ideology with key components of realism through its security apparatus and military. However, it was their liberal ideology, the creation of international institutions, and the promotion of democratic ideals, anchored in but not limited to a realist foundation, that most assured their enduring hegemonic climb to an apex at the close of the 20^th century of unrivalled global dominance.

Although there were two distinctly different U.S. grand strategies at play post-1945, the most important lesson for strategists is that liberal ideology and its underlying perspectives, rather than realist policies, played the most important role in America’s hegemonic rise to its current status as a global powerhouse. Firstly, this essay will describe the ideology that underpinned U.S. policy, decision-making and global ascendance. It will then explore America’s rise to power following WWII by analysing the nation’s actions and key elements of strategic success through the lens of the modern liberal principles of global economic integration and international institutionalism, interwoven with the growth of democracy.⁴ Finally, this essay will briefly examine and discuss the potential challenges that may arise from departing from previous ideologies in comparison to that which the U.S. successfully implemented throughout its meteoric global ascent.

Liberal Ideological foundations in the ascendance of the U.S.

Liberal internationalism is not just a byproduct of American hegemony. Generally, it involves reacting to modern progress, encompassing both its opportunities and dangers, and is described by Ikenberry as a ‘longstanding set of ideas, principles, and political agendas for organizing and reforming international order.’⁵ This response to progress was most evident after WWII, a period that combined a global shift in liberal influence and ideas in the vacuum left by the war, with the necessity for a robust and well-defined security system throughout the emerging Cold War. With the traditional colonial empires of Britain and France in decline and their nations recovering from the war's aftermath, the U.S. emerged as the prime candidate to establish and define the new world order. Forged in collaboration with European and East Asian allies amid the Cold War, this framework was built upon the pillars of open-market economics, security partnerships, multilateral engagement, and shared democratic values.⁶ As the leader of the free world, the U.S. pursued this role enthusiastically, fully recognising its power and influence, operating at speed and scale previously unseen in the last few centuries. Even in light of the contemporary rise of China, the U.S. rise to global superpower status following WWII stands as one of the most significant realities of the last century; no single country in the current context has ever been so powerful.⁷

This new world order was built in the decades following World War II through the pursuit of two grand strategies. One strategy was realist in design, forged during the Cold War and structured around containment, deterrence, and the maintenance of the global balance of power.⁸ Hans Morgenthau argues that geography is one of the most stable components of national power, and the United States undoubtedly leveraged its geographical positioning to reinforce its realist strategy throughout the Cold War;⁹ this rhetoric is still observed today, with President Trump’s references to ‘a big beautiful ocean as a separation.’¹⁰ The U.S. realist strategy contributed significantly to the successful outcome of the Cold War, and it formed the stable foundation from which the U.S. could further explore its alternate – and mutually beneficial – strategy. This other strategy was liberal in nature, founded on the belief in a rising tide of global prosperity and a rules-based order underpinned by Western values and democracy. Its implementation by decision-makers relied on an understanding among the citizens of the U.S. that, in any wave of global growth, the country that established the rules would benefit proportionately more than others.¹¹ Notably, this liberal ideology also deviated from the strategies of previous hegemonic powers in that it relied on cultivating independent allies and friendly nations rather than colonies, marking a key differentiation from past history.¹²

Global Economic Integration

Although both strategies proved successful in aiding the meteoric global rise of the United States, its liberal and ideological strategy was the more crucial factor in propelling the nation from simply becoming a superpower to achieving its current status as a world leader and Western hegemon. One fundamental underpinning of this liberal strategy that was critical to U.S. ascendance was global economic integration. Economic power is a central component of any effective national strategy and is essential to capitalist doctrine.¹³ In the years following the end of WWII and throughout the Cold War, economic prosperity was starkly contrasted between those nations aligned with the U.S. and those opting for communism. Economic integration and growth were selling points for the liberal agenda. The reduction of trade barriers and the promotion of global interdependency would not only stabilise national economies but also prevent the spread of communism while securing markets for U.S. goods. We can observe this in action post-1945 through key examples, such as Bretton Woods, a U.S.-led establishment of post-war economic institutions promoting free trade, open markets, and a dollar-centric global economy, as well as post-war recovery efforts in Europe, including the Marshall Plan and the reconstruction of Japan. The U.S. ability to embed liberal principles into these programs and the subsequent positive impact on democratic societies and economies was a huge part of America’s hegemony, establishing and solidifying strong alliances that still exist today.

Bretton Woods is a significant example of post-1945 international economic integration that fostered mutual prosperity and alliance building while also granting the U.S. a large amount of influence over global markets and establishing conditions for its rise. Although conducted during the war and ratified afterwards, the Bretton Woods conference in New Hampshire in 1944 would form the foundation for the creation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), which would later become part of the World Bank.¹⁴ The interwar experience had been flawed by the gold exchange standard, bilateralism, and floating exchange rates; therefore, the goal of the conference was to negotiate an international monetary constitution based on national full employment policies, cooperation, and stable exchange rates.¹⁵ Rather than technical mechanisms, such as the creation of a new international monetary system, it was the ideological focus on cooperation and peace that made Bretton Woods transformative. The architects of the plan, from both sides of the Atlantic, not only wanted to establish a system free from the shortcomings of the interwar period, but they were also highly focused on promoting world peace.¹⁶ As Michael Bordo states in his overview of Bretton Woods, ‘a strong sense of idealism prevailed…that as victors in a war to save democracy, they had an obligation to create a stable postwar international monetary order that would help secure the peace.’¹⁷ This is a clear indication that a liberal ideology drove economic multilateral policy and its implementation. Although the Bretton Woods system would ultimately collapse, it was instrumental in establishing the post-war international economic order and forming the basis for many global financial institutions that are still in effect today.¹⁸

An additional mechanism for economic integration, rooted in ideological prosperity and growth, was the large-scale European recovery efforts. This European Recovery Program, commonly referred to as the Marshall Plan, was established in 1947 and named after U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall. Its purpose was to generate funds to assist recovering nations in the aftermath of WWII. In the years immediately following the war's end, the Marshall Plan provided $12.3 billion in U.S. aid to help Western European countries recover from the damages of WWII.¹⁹ This assistance came in the form of repatriation, development projects, goods, and other support programs. These efforts were fundamentally ideological and stood in stark contrast to the communist approach when the USSR withdrew from the proposal, denouncing it as American economic imperialism. A prime example of the Marshall Plan’s benefits is West Germany's rapid economic recovery from 1948, known as ‘the economic miracle,’ which saw prosperity levels exceed those of the pre-war period within fifteen years.²⁰ Similarly, reconstruction efforts were underway in the Pacific to rebuild war-torn Japan, where another economic ‘miracle’ was achieved. Like Bretton Woods, the creation of these plans was not purely altruistic; the U.S. certainly prospered economically in the long term from implementation. However, it was the liberal ideals that drove their ultimate success and garnered participation from like-minded nations. As Michael Holm writes, ‘In American national memory, the Marshall Plan is recalled as the ultimate act of goodwill: an economic mission that saved Europe from hunger, despair, and Communism.’²¹ The success of this liberal policy is evident in the fact that by the end of the 20^th century, both Germany and Japan were not only industrial and economic global powers but also staunch allies of the U.S. and proponents of democracy in the international arena. Like the mindset that was adopted in the creation of NATO, the liberal ideation of ‘rehabilitation over repression’ was the salient standpoint in post-war recovery plans.²²

International institutionalism and a new world order

If the U.S. was to recreate and lead the new world order in the aftermath of WWII, it needed to bolster security frameworks, alliances, and international institutions to promote the expansion of democracy. There are several notable examples of organisations that the U.S. championed to achieve this, including the aforementioned Bretton Woods and Marshall Plan, which played a crucial role in the realms of alliance building and economic security. However, the two main international institutions that the U.S. helped create, which served to cement the global order, were the United Nations (UN) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Although both these institutions have merit from a realist, interest-driven perspective to building alliances, it was America’s ideational approach to alliance building, which Mary Hampton describes as the ‘Wilsonian impulse’, that shaped what would become known as the rules-based global order, including the Western Alliance.²³

NATO was created in 1949 to provide a framework for maintaining the balance of security in the North Atlantic. At the time of signing the treaty, it was largely focused on the Soviet Union. NATO, which just celebrated its 75^th anniversary in 2024, is now the longest-lasting multilateral military alliance in history, having surpassed the fifth-century Delian League.²⁴ The establishment of NATO certainly maintained collective security against the USSR, yet it was by virtue of America’s ideational approach rather than a singular interest-based approach that it achieved the greater goal of creating a trans-Atlantic community of nations committed to following a rules-based global order with the U.S. in the lead. A key component of this community was the central belief, resulting from Wilsonian lessons learned after WWI and the failed outcomes of the interwar period, that a peaceful Germany must be included in any construction of a Western alliance.²⁵ Of note, this sentiment existed prior to the Cold War and was driven through a liberal lens and ideals rather than just the Soviet threat. There was no guarantee how the U.S. relationship with West Germany would evolve post-1945, and at one point near the end of the War, President Roosevelt was considering the Morgenthau Plan, which was based on the realist approach of containment and extremely retributive in its approach. This was certainly a valid option to contain the defeated Germany and would likely have found support in other parts of Europe, but was ultimately dismissed, and a rehabilitative approach was adopted due to influence from liberal Wilsonians within the State Department, including Secretary of State Cordell Hull.²⁶ The long-term benefit to the U.S. in building the Western Alliance through NATO was the establishment of its position as the new leader of Western society, and it provides a clear example of a sound decision that was made initially due to security concerns but was predominantly successful in the long term as a result of liberal ideology. An example that, in many ways, is mirrored in the UN.

The idea behind the UN, an international collective to maintain a rules-based order, was inspired largely by Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations and conceived during WWII to prepare for eventual peace.²⁷ Disillusionment remained from the League's failure to prevent the current war, and this shaped thinking regarding what function the new institution possessed. There was undoubtedly a need for the UN to command and control forces or have ‘teeth’ from a security or enforcement perspective.²⁸ However, there was a fundamental bipartisan desire to extract the right lesson for the time, which was the need for a global organisation to guide statecraft towards peace.²⁹ These principles were incorporated into the original charter, based mainly upon the design provided by the American State Department. The UN is not without its faults; however, debating the historically successful function of the UN is not within the scope of this essay; suffice it to say that despite best efforts, the UN’s efficacy has, at times, atrophied over the course of its existence.³⁰ Despite this, the UN remains a credible international institution that draws together a multitude of nations in an environment that seeks to minimise the realist dictum that ‘might makes right’ and attempts to promote a moral position that provides equal representation for all member states.

The importance of the UN is particularly significant in the context of democratic expansion amid the spread of communism during the Cold War. Noted by President Wilson during the First World War and by President Roosevelt in WWII, the UN would play a key role in interventions to protect global democracy, serving as a vital weapon in the West’s ‘arsenal of democracy.’³¹ This collaboration of institutions that protect and strengthen global democracy, led predominantly by the UN, not only continues to exist today, but has spawned numerous purposeful and durable international and regional institutions in its wake. This includes various UN funds and programmes, as well as bodies such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the World Food Programme (WFP), among many others.³² The ideological sentiment of the time is captured by Schlesinger, who writes, ‘what shines through today for Americans in our more cynical age is the unusual intellect and honest idealism of these founding fathers and mothers of the UN.’³³ Thus, liberalism explains not only why these institutions were created but also why they endured.

Erosion of liberal order

This essay has argued that liberalism and its core ideology, in contrast to realism, played the key role in the application of U.S. grand strategy and, by extension, its rise to global hegemon. The virtues of liberal ideology are clear in their capacity to foster consent, legitimacy, and durable alliances beyond raw power. But what happens if the pillars of this foundation are eroded or removed? Policymakers and academics have grappled with this issue for some years now, but this challenge has accelerated over the last decade. Archaya argues that the liberal international order relies on core elements such as free trade, post-war multilateral institutions, and the expansion of democracy and liberal ideals. However, he also contends that these elements have been stagnating or declining for some time.³⁴

Goldberg contends the American Constitution was crafted not necessarily to guard the individual welfare of its citizens but rather to ensure their fundamental rights and liberties.³⁵ Yet Capitalism and entrepreneurship emphasise the individual over the community, creating tension when looked at through a liberal geopolitical lens. The current U.S. administration appears to be dismantling this liberal order through its withdrawal from trade, environmental, and security agreements. In his mission to make America great, Trump’s focus on immediately correcting the short-term economic status of the U.S. projects a fundamental lack of faith in the strategic and normative utility of Western alliances.³⁶ If allies, particularly ones with good international standing and values, begin to distance themselves from long-standing partnerships, agreements, and potential alliances, there will be commensurate difficulty in selling a liberal narrative and garnering global participation. This divergence from the underlying ideology that enabled its global rise questions whether the U.S. can maintain its status as a hegemon or whether its power and influence wane. In short, power without liberalism risks hegemony without consent.

Conclusion

For over 150 years, the United States’ self-image has been grounded in a belief in its exceptional nature and moral duty to spread its ideals globally. A conviction that the uniqueness of American democracy, values, and freedoms gives it both the right and responsibility to reshape the world in its likeness. Like other major ideologies, this American duty is characterised by a progressive and optimistic view of history, guided by core values that inform its actions and political justifications.³⁷ Although realism and hard power played a fundamental role in the U.S. rise to superpower, it was this liberal conviction and ideology that played the key role in assuring U.S. hegemonic ascendance in the period following WWII.

This essay has demonstrated that liberal ideology and its underlying perspectives played the most important role in the United States’ hegemonic rise to its current status as a global hegemon. Firstly, it examined the ideology that underpinned U.S. policy, decision-making and broader success, creating the foundational basis for U.S. ascendance. Through the lens of modern liberalism, it then analysed America’s rise to power following WWII through key actions and the principles of strategic success - economic integration, international institutionalism, and the growth of democracy. Finally, this essay briefly explored the risks of erosion: if liberalism recedes, can the U.S. sustain its order? This raises some interesting questions for the international community. As Acharya suggests, perhaps we should ‘stop pining for the return of liberal hegemony,’ accept that the circumstances that existed for a liberal hegemonic rise are no longer present, and prepare for a multiplex order.³⁸ Yet if history shows anything, it is that when power is paired with liberal ideology, it not only wins wars but secures peace, exactly as Liddell Hart envisioned.

I acknowledge the use of the AI tool Perplexity to generate ideas for areas of research and develop my understanding within this case study. I have used the tool Grammarly to assist in the editing of grammar and spelling. I have critically assessed and validated any generated feedback. The final version of the paper is my own creation.

Bibliography

Acharya, Amitav. “After Liberal Hegemony: The Advent of a Multiplex World Order.” Ethics and International Affairs 31 (2017): 271–85.

Apps, Peter. Deterring Armageddon: A Biography of NATO: The “Astonishingly Fine History” of the World’s Most Successful Military Alliance. Wildfire, 2024.

Barnett, Michael N. “Bringing in the New World Order: Liberalism, Legitimacy, and the United Nations.” Edited by Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Commission on Global Governance, Gareth Evans, and Report of the Independent Working Group on the Future of the United Nations. World Politics 49, no. 4 (1997): 526–51.

Bordo, Michael D. “The Bretton Woods International Monetary System: A Historical Overview.” In A Retrospective on the Bretton Woods System: Lessons for International Monetary Reform, 3–108. University of Chicago Press, 1993. https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/retrospective-bretton-woods-system-lessons-international-monetary-reform/bretton-woods-international-monetary-system-historical-overview.

Challener, Richard D. “CHAPTER 5. The Moralist as Pragmatist: John Foster Dulles as Cold War Strategist.” In The Diplomats, 1939–1979, 135–66. Princeton University Press, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691194462-008.

Freedman, Lawrence. Strategy: A History. Oxford University Press, 2015.

“Geopolitics and International Trade: The Democracy Advantage in: IMF Working Papers Volume 2024 Issue 021 (2024).” Accessed March 11, 2025. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2024/021/article-A001-en.xml.

“Germany - Partition, Reunification, Economy | Britannica.” Accessed March 12, 2025. https://www.britannica.com/place/Germany/Modern-economic-history-from-partition-to-reunification.

Goldberg, Edward. The United States as Global Liberal Hegemon: How the US Came to Lead the World. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2024.

Gutmann, Martin. The Unseen Leader: How History Can Help Us Rethink Leadership. 1st ed. Cham: Springer, 2023.

Hamilton, Matthew. “What Is Bretton Woods? The Contested Pasts and Potential Futures of International Economic Order.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2024.

Hampton, Mary N. “NATO at the Creation: U.S. Foreign Policy, West Germany and the Wilsonian Impulse.” Security Studies 4, no. 3 (March 1995): 610–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636419509347596.

Hatherell, Michael, Jade Guan, and Katherine Mansted. “National Security, Information and Ideas: Time to Think about Ideational Power,” January 1, 2020. https://dro.deakin.edu.au/articles/journal_contribution/National_security_information_and_ideas_Time_to_think_about_ideational_power/20655177/1.

Holm, Michael. The Marshall Plan: A New Deal for Europe. Critical Moments in American History. New York London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017.

Ikenberry, G. John. “End of Liberal International Order? | International Affairs | Oxford Academic.” Accessed March 4, 2025. https://academic.oup.com/ia/article/94/1/7/4762691.

Ikenberry, G. John. “Power and Liberal Order: America’s Postwar World Order in Transition.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 5, no. 2 (January 1, 2005): 133–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lci112.

Jablonsky, David. “National Power.” The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters 27, no. 1 (February 13, 1997). https://doi.org/10.55540/0031-1723.1815.

Johnson, Ian Ona. “Adams Center 2022 Cold War Essay Contest Winner Army of Peace: American Military Ambitions for the United Nations and the Origins of the Cold War.” Journal of Military History 87, no. 3 (July 1, 2023): 765–94.

Jonev, Katarina, Hatidza Berisa, and Jovanka Saranovic. “The Role of the United States of America in the Post-Cold War World: A Global Leader or Hegemon?” Journal of Liberty and International Affairs (JLIA) 2, no. 2 (2017 2016): 46–55.

Kennedy, Paul M., 1945-. “The Parliament of Man : The Past, Present, and Future of the United Nations / Paul Kennedy.,” January 1, 2006. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=9116af8b-7720-3ec2-a30f-934bb0415144.

Luard, Evan. A History of the United Nations. London: Macmillan, 1984.

Maus, Sylvia. “Jus Post Bellum a La United Nations: Human Rights, UN Peace Operations, and the Creation of International Law.” Wisconsin International Law Journal 32, no. 4 (December 15, 2014): 675–98.

Mead, Walter Russell. “A Hegemon’s Coming of Age: A Brief History of U.S. Foreign Relations Reviews & Responses: Review Essay.” Foreign Affairs 88, no. 4 (2009): 138–43.

Morgenthau, Hans J. “Politics Among Nations The Struggle For Power And Peace,” n.d.

Padelford, Norman J. Review of Review of Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace., by Hans J. Morgenthau. Political Science Quarterly 64, no. 2 (1949): 290–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/2144235.

Palermo, Giulio. “The Ontology of Economic Power in Capitalism: Mainstream Economics and Marx.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 31, no. 4 (July 1, 2007): 539–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bel036.

Paris, Roland. “Peacebuilding and the Limits of Liberal Internationalism.” International Security 22, no. 2 (1997): 54–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539367.

Phillips, Andrew, and Christian Reus-Smit, eds. Culture and Order in World Politics. LSE International Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108754613.

Schlesinger, Stephen C. Act of Creation: The Founding of the United Nations : A Story of Superpowers, Secret Agents, Wartime Allies and Enemies, and Their Quest for a Peaceful World. Westview Press, 2003.

Scott, Bruce R. The Political Economy of Capitalism. Division of Research, Harvard Business School, 2006.

Selby, Jan. “The Myth of Liberal Peace-Building.” Conflict, Security & Development 13, no. 1 (March 1, 2013): 57–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2013.770259.

Steil, Benn. The Battle of Bretton Woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the Making of a New World Order. Princeton University Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1r2dxv.

Thompson, William R. “The Distinctiveness of NATO and the Alliance’s Prehistory.” Transatlantic Policy Quarterly 22, no. 1 (March 1, 2023): 72–81. https://doi.org/10.58867/ibis9578/vwoh3402.

“Trump Calls Zelensky ‘dictator’ as Rift between Two Leaders Deepens,” February 20, 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjev2j70v19o.

World Bank. “Bretton Woods and the Birth of the World Bank.” Text/HTML. Accessed March 10, 2025. https://www.worldbank.org/en/archive/history/exhibits/Bretton-Woods-and-the-Birth-of-the-World-Bank.

Footnotes

¹B. H. Liddell Hart, Strategy (Editorial Benei Noaj, 2009), 322.

²“Events Leading to the Creation of NATO,” Congressional Digest 45, no. 10 (October 1, 1966): 231.

³G. John Ikenberry, “Power and Liberal Order: America’s Postwar World Order in Transition,” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 5, no. 2 (January 1, 2005): 133, https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lci112.

⁴Andrew Phillips and Christian Reus-Smit, eds., Culture and Order in World Politics, LSE International Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 137–44, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108754613.

⁵G. John Ikenberry, “End of Liberal International Order? | International Affairs | Oxford Academic,” 9, accessed March 4, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/ia/article/94/1/7/4762691.

⁶Ikenberry, “Power and Liberal Order,” 133.

⁷Ikenberry, 133.

⁸Ikenberry, 137.

⁹Hans J Morgenthau, “Politics Among Nations The Struggle For Power And Peace,” n.d., 80.

¹⁰“Trump Calls Zelensky ‘dictator’ as Rift between Two Leaders Deepens,” February 20, 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjev2j70v19o.

¹¹Edward Goldberg, The United States as Global Liberal Hegemon: How the US Came to Lead the World (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2024), 8.

¹²Goldberg, 5.

¹³Bruce R. Scott, The Political Economy of Capitalism (Division of Research, Harvard Business School, 2006), 1–3.

¹⁴“Bretton Woods and the Birth of the World Bank,” Text/HTML, World Bank, accessed March 10, 2025, https://www.worldbank.org/en/archive/history/exhibits/Bretton-Woods-and-the-Birth-of-the-World-Bank.

¹⁵Michael D. Bordo, “The Bretton Woods International Monetary System: A Historical Overview,” in A Retrospective on the Bretton Woods System: Lessons for International Monetary Reform (University of Chicago Press, 1993), 27, https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/retrospective-bretton-woods-system-lessons-international-monetary-reform/bretton-woods-international-monetary-system-historical-overview.

¹⁶Bordo, 30.

¹⁷Bordo, 33.

¹⁸Matthew Hamilton, “What Is Bretton Woods? The Contested Pasts and Potential Futures of International Economic Order,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2024.

¹⁹Michael Holm, The Marshall Plan: A New Deal for Europe, Critical Moments in American History (New York London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017), 1.

²⁰“Germany - Partition, Reunification, Economy | Britannica,” accessed March 12, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/place/Germany/Modern-economic-history-from-partition-to-reunification.

²¹Holm, The Marshall Plan, 2.

²²Richard D. Challener, “CHAPTER 5. The Moralist as Pragmatist: John Foster Dulles as Cold War Strategist,” in The Diplomats, 1939–1979 (Princeton University Press, 2019), 140, https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691194462-008.

²³Mary N. Hampton, “NATO at the Creation: U.S. Foreign Policy, West Germany and the Wilsonian Impulse,” Security Studies 4, no. 3 (March 1995): 610, https://doi.org/10.1080/09636419509347596.

²⁴Peter Apps, Deterring Armageddon: A Biography of NATO: The “Astonishingly Fine History” of the World’s Most Successful Military Alliance (Wildfire, 2024).

²⁵Hampton, “NATO at the Creation,” 611.

²⁶Hampton, 619–20.

²⁷Stephen C. Schlesinger, Act of Creation: The Founding of the United Nations : A Story of Superpowers, Secret Agents, Wartime Allies and Enemies, and Their Quest for a Peaceful World (Westview Press, 2003).

²⁸Evan Luard, A History of the United Nations (London: Macmillan, 1984), 6–7.

²⁹Schlesinger, Act of Creation, 4.

³⁰Michael N. Barnett, “Bringing in the New World Order: Liberalism, Legitimacy, and the United Nations,” ed. Boutros Boutros-Ghali et al., World Politics 49, no. 4 (1997): 527.

³¹Schlesinger, Act of Creation, 31.

³²Acharya, “After Liberal Hegemony,” 279.

³³Schlesinger, Act of Creation, 3.

³⁴Acharya, “After Liberal Hegemony,” 274.

³⁵Goldburg, The United States as Global Liberal Hegemon, 13

³⁶Acharya, “After Liberal Hegemony,” 275.

³⁷Holm, The Marshall Plan, 13.

³⁸Acharya, “After Liberal Hegemony,” 284.

Cite Article

Comments

Within this area, Defence’s newest members will be exposed to the conflict spectrum and theories associated with its employment. While additional emphasis will be afforded to one’s own Service, consideration will be given to joint operations and planning processes. The topic will also include an exploration of current ADF operations and emerging technological impacts on future preparedness.

The ADF’s contribution to Australian National Power through shape, deter and respond activities will be understood in general terms. Tied with this awareness will be ADO roles and responsibilities, including civil-military relations. The importance of Defence’s contribution in this regard will be linked to a general sense of Australia’s strategic environment. Resource management fundamentals will help underpin responsible expenditure of Commonwealth funds.

All members of Defence will also need to be competent in military administration, ADF roles and structures, and undertake all initial mandatory training. This foundation will continue to develop in subsequent JPME levels and increasingly expand opportunites for Joint Stream (out-of-category) postings and roles. APS does not require core military skills.

Following on from their respective recruit or commissioning course, ADF personnel will commence their Initial Employment Training (IET). This period can include workplace experience and periods of on-the-job training.

Graduation from IET marks the formal transition from Level 1 to Level 2. It is at this point when they are considered effective in the workplace.

Defence members at this level will have a sound understanding of their own Service or domain warfare systems and capability. As they progress through Level 2, they will display a stronger understanding about the ADF’s holistic contribution to Joint Force warfighting domains. This will extend to the nature and theory of war, which has developed through an academic study of historical case studies and contemporary military issues. Importantly, such awareness will help inform their understanding of the impact of technology on current and future warfare. Awareness of gender perspectives on operations will contribute to their well-rounded application of the Profession of Arms.

By recognising the difference between complicated and complex problems, personnel at this level will ensure their problem-solving strategies and decision making are optimised. In the earlier stages, personnel will employ more transactional, linear thinking, decision support tools (such as the Joint Military Appreciation Process or variations) but they will increasingly apply alternate thinking strategies to seek more sophisticated options. Greater availability of human-machine teaming systems will progressively reduce our reliance on lower order cognitive activity and thus facilitate more nuanced considerations to complex problems.

Australia’s approach to the formulation of military strategy and its strategic environment (including international and geopolitical) will strengthen as members advance in this Level. Through both courses and experience, they will also acquire a stronger understanding of interagency strategies, policies and decision making processes.

As they progress through Level 2, Defence personnel will progressively develop awareness and then expertise beyond their initial employment category.

These broader systems and processes will expand to include one or more of the five key Joint Streams: Military Support, Operations, Capability Development and Delivery, Strategy Policy and Engagement, and Intelligence.

Within JPME Level 2, Defence personnel will become increasingly proficient in their initial employment category. Through both their formal courses (initial employment training and subsequent intermediate courses) and workplace experience, they will display competency in their contribution to military power. As they develop greater technical expertise, senior personnel at this level will become suitable for growing the next generation, by seeking instructional roles.

Those operating at this level will understand both internal Joint Force command relationships and international engagement with coalition partners. Their employment of operational art will consider instruments of national power and campaign design, while the relationship challenges between strategic, operational and tactical levels of war will be clearly understood. Continual professional development will keep Level 3 practitioners abreast of emerging trends and future warfare techniques. Expertise will be apparent in the planning requirements for force generation and the factors that shape the execution of joint operations. National and military strategic planning considerations for Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, Ambiguous and Novel (VUCAN) environments will mature. Personnel will be increasingly aware of the influence technology has on current and future warfare as well as whole-of-government response options.

Those operating at this level will be increasingly comfortable with systems thinking to perceive and influence complex adaptive systems. Various alternative thinking strategies, such as Design Thinking and Multi-Criteria Decision Making, will allow them to thrive in the challenging multi-domain environment.

Importantly, they will be able to translate complex strategic issues into tangible ideas for their subordinates.

This level is noted for its integration of civil-military functions and instruments of national power. This includes strategy and public policy development as well as contemporary operating environments and implications for military and security forces. Awareness of both Joint and multinational logistics will complement resource management systems of the Joint Force.

Expertise in one or more of the Joint Streams specific processes will continue to develop with staff and/or leadership responsibilities aligning with roles held.

Examples of the advanced knowledge base likely to be demonstrated include: One Defence Capability System (or its successor) and FIC management, Joint Force staff roles, advanced Human Resources systems and processes, Whole of Government and international engagement approaches, as well as legislative requirements associated with the relevant Joint Stream.

Through more senior category appointments and opportunities, those at Level 3 will display expertise within their specialist category employment. Completion of charge courses, deployments, exercises and pre-command courses, personnel will increasingly expand their specialist expertise to support joint effects.

Increasing leadership expectations will develop within their category’s specialist vocation.

This level is recognised for its future Joint Force planning, development and sustainment challenges. Those operating in these positions will resolve military resource challenges and understand limitations of contracted support to operations. Operational artists will be adept at integrating strategic objectives to planning through the exploitation of emerging and non-traditional concepts for joint and multinational warfare. These skills will manifest in their ability to design and lead theatre strategies, campaigns and major operations. They will also be seeking opportunities to exploit technology’s influence on current and future warfare as well as its role in whole-of-government response options.

Cognitive performance will be enhanced through active seeking of diversity and a tolerance for ambiguity. Dealing with Defence-related wicked systems will be normal.

Problem-solving will increasingly accept increased risk to reflect the greater depth of wisdom and confidence in one’s judgments. This level is also noted for strategic thinking, visioning and championing a learning culture.

Level 4 leaders will be strong advocates of divergent thinking in their subordinates (when appropriate), to ensure Defence continues to improve systems and processes.

Those operating at this level have a very clear understanding of the impacts on national Defence policy and strategy. They will positively influence military capability development to enhance relevant instruments of national power. A strong awareness of contemporary global affairs and trends, combined with a deep understanding of international relations theories, will enhance their management of national military resources to support national security and foreign policy. Gender, peace and security impacts will continue to guide their strategic policy development.

Those operating at this level will be considered Generalists who possess a wide range of skills and expertise in multiple Joint Stream areas. With the exception of a select few specialists, these personnel will have actively sought out opportunities to broaden their versatility beyond their specialisation. Typical areas will include: strategic planning, civil-military relationships, campaign planning, strategic governance, business and financial acumen, One Defence Capability System leadership, strategic direction setting of emerging capabilities, policy leadership for future capability needs, and industry engagement for sustainment and growth.

At the enlisted level, Tier B and C warrant officers provide a vital link across the ADF, not only championing 75% of the ADF at the strategic table but also helping translate the top-down messaging. To do this, they must excel in understanding both worlds. Strategic level warrant officers also play a pivotal role in the command team relationship not only as advisors to decision-makers, but also in the strategic leadership of organisational culture, ongoing professional development, and the ideological underpinnings of the Profession of Arms throughout the ADF’s workforce

For those still in key roles within their primary category, there will be strong leadership expectations to ensure the delivery of capability, strategic advice on capabilities, limitations and future needs, as well as shaping the professional development system to grow future generations within the field.

Senior officers and their equivalents will be comfortable in crisis leadership situations across all aspects of Defence. They will be highly effective when commanding Joint Task Forces or conducting influence operations. This performance will come from a deep understanding of Joint Force attributes, structures, capability requirements, emerging concepts and risks affecting military strategies and campaign development. Their strategic leadership abilities will extend to synthesising operational lessons learned across all Force elements including deployment, employment and sustainment. All of these areas will be enhanced by their astute awareness of political and resource implications in joint warfare strategy and planning.

Multi-agency, political and global wicked systems are an expected reality of Level 5 roles. Those operating at this level will have the cognitive agility to respond comfortably with these challenges by exploiting paradigm shifting approaches (such as nudge theory) to improve systems to a more advantageous state.

Senior leaders at this level will be expert in strategic communication and information impacts. They will comfortably implement grand strategy through future-focused policy formulation and employment of armed forces. Their expertise in national intelligence community and architecture will help them influence national security and foreign policy. The implications of contemporary challenges on national security strategies will be understood. This depth of understanding will be drawn from a strong awareness of national powers’ characteristics, capabilities and limitations combined with the civil-military relations necessary to deliver national power instruments.

Senior officers and SES band public servants at the highest echelons will be skilled in decision cycles and information/knowledge management systems. They will understand Government processes for capability acquisition and how to exploit technology enablers within enterprise systems.

As leaders of Force Element Groups (FEGs) or Joint Task Forces (JTFs), senior military officers will integrate emerging capabilities and technology to both maintain force-in-being deterrence and deliver operations to meet Government response options. In policy and advisory roles, they will exploit emerging capabilities and technologies when shaping military strategy, policy development and implementation. Industry engagement will enhance support of sovereign capability and Australia’s economic prosperity

A Service Warrant Officer is a unique appointment within each Service, one of influence and advice rather than Command. E10 Warrant Officers have strategic leadership responsibilities as Command advisors to Senior Leadership of their Service to provide critical insight to key decisions through an alternative lived experience and with support from Senior Enlisted Personnel to give a balanced, informed and analysed perspective from the workforce.

They also play a pivotal role in the organisation’s leadership, able to utilise their professional knowledge and experience to provide context and make the complex simple and the simple compelling. The unique appointment ensures the Service WO stays connected to contemporise issues for the workforce and represent those gaps and opportunities at the appropriate delegated level.

Service Warrant Officers deliberately steward, communicate and are genuinely dedicated to their Service; while always supporting strategic organisation culture and setting the conditions for long-term success.

Service Warrant Officers have a concurrent liability to foster relationships supporting Australia’s national power through networking and encouraging active engagement with counterparts to promote a commonality of purpose: – Friendship, Partnership and Leadership.