What the West needs most is a fresh look at the full range of its capabilities and interests. Only then can its power fulfill its purpose. Seen as a wonder tool, smart power has been embraced as a fresh and benign aspect of power; a definably formulaic mix of soft (cultural) power and hard (military) power.

CPD Advisory Board member Markos Kounalakis co-authored a piece about 'Spectral Power' in the October 27th edition of The Christian Science Monitor.

What the West needs most is a fresh look at the full range of its capabilities and interests. Only then can its power fulfill its purpose. Seen as a wonder tool, smart power has been embraced as a fresh and benign aspect of power; a definably formulaic mix of soft (cultural) power and hard (military) power.

Predictably, there has been much debate about cuts in the defence budget, with spending on aircraft carriers and the renewal of the nuclear deterrent - instruments of 'hard power' - coming under particular scrutiny. Less has been said about the implications for the country's 'soft power': the BBC World Service, British Council and intellectual capital.

The term "smart power" is just half a decade old, but the concept behind it goes back much further. Grand strategists from Carl von Clausewitz to Lawrence of Arabia advocated a mix of "hard" military power and "soft" ideological sway as the recipe for winning wars.

Along the gradient of power, there’s a possible mix of “soft” and “hard” varieties. The public diplomacy originating at the U.S. State Department is commonly associated with the “soft” power of peaceful persuasion and cultural appeal; the foreign information efforts at the Pentagon are often in the service of some tangible “hard” power goal. The mixing often takes place in conflict zones, where a variety of forces and actors are in play. So who decides the mix, and how?