Restraint By Barry Posen

For the United States government, the failure of U.S intervention in Vietnam provided lessons about where and under what circumstances the United States should intervene in foreign conflicts. Throughout the mid-twentieth century, U.S. foreign policy was characterized by the idea of “containment”. Coined by George Kennan in 1946,

The United States “regular[ly] resort[s] to war” on the foundation of a “militant foreign policy,” which is associated with a “hegemonic national identity.”3 According to Hixson, the militancy of foreign policy stems from western Europe whose “colonialism and imperialism…flowed from the aggressive expansion of a…worldview that apotheosized its way of life as ordered, reasoned and providentially

The current overwhelming dominance of the unprecedented modern American empire in the realm of world politics generally agreed upon by experts and scholars around the world. There is little to refute the argument that there is any state that comes close to the strength of the Americans in a vast number of areas, most notably economically and militarily. Present debate among experts in the field of international relations revolves around whether the Americans can maintain their primacy for upcoming generations. Robert Dujarric and William Odom, both experienced and respected scholars of international relations, declare in their 2004 work, “America’s Inadvertent Empire,” that America is in a solid position to keep a tight hold on its place at the top. Vividly explaining America’s path to dominance while emphasizing the current state of domination, the authors effectively present the abilities of the empire while also illustrating the potential threats that could bring it down.

The doctrine of United States foreign policy has changed significantly during and after the Cold War, as the United States redefined its foreign policies during each of these eras. Although inarguably United States promotes liberal democracy, how it goes about doing so currently, could not be necessarily categorized as a liberal approach. During the Cold War United States had a more liberal approach towards promotion of democracy. Yet this approach has since changed as it did not emphasize enough the importance of other states materialistic needs and its impact on their international behavior, thus leading United States to adopt a more constructivist perspective toward its foreign policy.

Military Budget is ‘Foolish and Sustainable’”, Benjamin Friedman and Justin Logan, a researcher and a director, respectively at Cato Institute, discuss ways in which a minimization in military spending can have positive outcomes for both the U.S. and other countries. To summarize the essay, they state that the best approach is if for the U.S. to reduces its military presence in other countries. Effectively, this would prevent countries from relying on U.S. intervention and allow more countries to be dependent on themselves; additionally, it will also prevent “weaker” allied nations from gaining a false sense of emboldenment to take risks they otherwise would not against neighboring countries, which would inevitably force the U.S. to intervene. Friedman and Logan estimated that a disinclination to impose rule over these “weaker” nations will not only increase content among both nations, but it will save over $250 billion over a span of a decade and thousands of lives, and still leave a force capable of winning any ground war if needed (Friedman, B., et al., 2012, 177-191). Friedman and Logan have valid claims that agree with and support my position as to both how, and why, there should be cuts in military

The Next Decade, a novel by George Friedman, talks about the predictions of countries in the upcoming decade and how the United States should react to the various challenges. The novel’s first major claim is that the United States is actually an empire, similar to how Rome and Great Brian were. However, unlike the previous empires, the United States refuses to acknowledge its status as an empire. “What makes the United States an empire is the number of countries it affects, the intensity of the impact, and the number of people in those countries affected.” The implication of this quote is that the US has gotten to be so large, if the US decided to draw out of global affairs, the impact would be detrimental. Instead of escaping its duty to the world, Friedman claims that the United States must acknowledge its status as an empire and function as such in order to maneuver the next decade. This claim is a wise claim made by Friedman, but it his only claim of worth in the novel. In The Next Decade, Friedman fails to make his thesis credible because he doesn’t his sources, provide logical arguments on his predications of the future, or examine alternative possibilities.

Research suggests that Hegemony can be best understood as a way of “power that combines coercion and persuasion” (Raghavan, 2017). History can tell that a hegemony in a downturn will turn out to be even more ready to engage in imperialistic activities has an effort to contain or regain its decreasing power. But American military dominance cannot be enough to protect hegemony without Global economic dominance. There are ways to which Hegemony can be described, back when U.S. imperialism dominated Haiti, they had Hegemony over Haiti and it economic and political construction. Wherefore, in an age of homogony, U.S.’ “foreign and domestic policies have assumed an unprecedented prominence in the affairs of other nations and regions as they seek to accommodate, and where possible benefit from, the evolution of U.S. hegemony” (Beeson,

policy, he outlined containment’s geopolitical outlook and communism’s tendencies; together, these components identify containment’s spirit in three strategic goals. Kennan’s psychoanalytic containment strategy required “constant pressure [ ] toward the desired goal[,]” of securing the world from Soviet Communist expansionism. Indeed, curbing communism’s universal aspirations compelled a geopolitical outlook requiring counterforce at various geopolitical points like Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba. Containment’s spirit therefore lay in its attempt through counterforce to restrict communist progression and control Soviet policy. Thus, Kennan’s prescriptions sought to uphold U.S. appearances so the world recognized the U.S. “has a spiritual vitality capable of holding its own among [ ] major ideological currents of the time.” According to Gaddis, containment’s three overarching goals were: (1) restore the international balance of power, (2) reduce the USSR’s projection of communist influence, and (3) acquiesce Soviet aims to dominate international relations and negotiate U.S.-Soviet

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the unquestioned hegemon of the western world acting in a unipolar world. However, recently the United States has fallen into a series of deprival causing its reputation to fall as a state. Despite this, under the Bush Doctrine, the United States currently has a preemptive hegemonic imperative policy. Under this policy, the United States takes into account that the world is a perilous environment in need of a leader to guide and to control the various rebel states unipolarly. Under this policy though, the United States acts alone with no assistance from other states or institutions. Global intuitions that would assist under other types of policies are flagrantly disregarded in this policy in spite of its emphasis on the international level. As well as not participating in international institutions, this policy states that the United States should act entirely in its own wisdom. The UN (the United Nations), GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade), along with other institutions advice is not heeded within this self-made policy. Though the United States currently acknowledges these global organizations, it no longer takes them into account with severity. Instead of acting under the international system, the United States currently acts through its military, and large economy to instill fear within the various actors in the intercontinental system. According to this philosophy the

The grand strategy of President of Bush foreign policy was to promote the spread of American democratic principles throughout the rest of the world and liberate those who are oppressed under non democratic regimes. In order to accomplish these foreign policy goals the Bush administration needed to exert a maximum display of force which was often achieved through military intervention. In the first term of President Bush administration one of the most daunting tasks faced with the implementation of the foreign policy strategy was how America could adequately address the growing

When you have a thought of courage usually you think of a hero of some sort, but there is also something called quiet courage. Quiet courage is something not many people notice because it is quiet courage. To me my father, Scott Huffman, has quiet courage, he is an extraordinary human being who doesn’t get much credit on many subjects. He lost his job, he lost his house, and he broke his left leg. Only, that didn’t stop him from doing everything he could to be the best person he could be. Scott Huffman is a man who has quiet courage.

The U.S. has a history of being bad at entangling alliances. According to George Washington, “We need to be careful of tangling alliances” (Fromkin). For this reason, the United States was dragged into WWI. America should be constantly increasing its military, but for national defense, not for policing the world (Schneider). America's national security depends on America to stop getting involved in everything and to secure its borders. If America could stop spending millions on policing other countries; the weight of this task would be shifted to a group of nations that have their governments under control.

There are also those who are not apathetic toward foreign policy; rather, they are very interested it and so upset by the policies they see implemented that they are arguing for an American return to isolationism. This view is centered largely around the belief that the United States gives too much in monetary and military aid to foreign countries. In an article by the CATO Institute titled “What Some Call ‘Isolationism,’ Others Call Common Sense,” the author argues that, “If we [America] continue on our current path, with other countries growing more and more dependent on U.S. military power and less inclined to develop their own, the burdens on American taxpayers and U.S. troops will only grow heavier. While it is true that the United States spends $640.2 billion supporting the military each year, and that this accounts for 38% percent of the world’s total military expenditures, it is arguable that having a strong, well-funded military

The question of, “Was America’s actions during the Cold War containment or hegemony?” cannot be easily answered with a single source or perspective. While some attempt to justify the United States’ actions during the Cold War as necessary to preserving freedom and the American way of life through the containment of the Soviet threat, there are just as many critics on the other side of the debate that have argued that, America used the Cold War as a veil under which it expanded it’s influence and power throughout the world. My intent is to show how some believe that America’s Cold War policies were completely justified and how others see America’s actions as nothing more than American imperialism.

The Bush Doctrine vastly expanded what the United States deems a “vital interest”—dragging preëmptive action, unilateralism, and anti-terrorism under its umbrella. Democratizing nations plays a critical role in the strategy as well. A spirit of liberalism flows through the Doctrine, as it attempts to depose tyrannical dictators to ease relations between nations and foster democracy. It