Don T Come Home America Analysis

The articles for this week argue the positives and negatives of the foreign policy of Deep Engagement. In Barry Posen's "Pull Back" he argues that Deep Engagement is a detrimental foreign policy and is not viable economically, politically, or militarily. Therefore, Posen advocates for Retrenchment as the new Grand Strategy of the U.S. On the opposing side, Brooks, Ikenberry, and Wohlforth in "Don't Come Home, America" argue that Retrenchment does not fully understand all the positives of Deep Engagement and that Retrenchment has little to no academic validation. The arguments presented by these two readings was an interesting lens to apply foreign policy decisions. Both articles had persuasive points on the different levels of engagement recommended. Posen's whole argument for Entrenchment hinges on the idea that the U.S. is losing more money, time, and citizens engaging the world's problems and thus need to pull back in foreign affairs to get the U.S. back on a healthy economic level. Initially, this argument was the most compelling, yet after reading "Don't Come Home, America" the analysis and presentation of facts ultimately persuaded me to consider Deep Engagement the more applicable strategy. …show more content…
As a person who tends to favor action over passivity, I was already predisposed to agree with Deep Engagement over Retrenchment. In "Don't Come Home, America" the authors state that each part of Deep Engagement ultimately benefits America's goals and interests. From a retrenchment standpoint, U.S.'s policy of militarily being dominate is an economic and physical drain. However, this does not consider that remaining dominate allows the U.S. to cement its allies' reliance on itself and allows the US to push its own military agenda in regards to nuclear