The psychological isolation of the United States, which lingers to this day, hinders such understanding. In a great twist of irony, American military success was thought to prove that a peacetime grand strategy was unnecessary. In the 19th century, the only truly difficult war fought by Americans was, in fact, fought among Americans.15 Twentieth century experience further reinforced the belief that production, rather than skill at strategy, determined national security. The ability of the United States to mobilize appeared boundless, hence these did not have to be used with efficiency. Finally, the post-World War II tradition of the US world role from that of liberal reformer to cautious conservative also cramped the development of strategy.
Strategy is essentially goal-oriented.
The clearer the notion of the goal to be sought, the easier it is to craft a strategy to attain it. Conservatism, on the other hand, is antivisionary and seeks to prevent or limit change rather than encourage and control it. Thus, it is easier to construct a strategy of reform or revolution than a strategy of the status quo. Clearly, the United States has not become a purely conservative or reactionary power along the lines of Prince Metternich's Austria. There is still something of the old liberal spark in American foreign policy and at least a misty vision of a preferred future world.