Historically, the United States has frowned upon a state with a powerful military. Likely because of the Revolution, many Americans saw the military as a direct challenge to a successful democracy. Accordingly, the increase in militarism has three main implications on United States foreign policy through the amount and help of each of engagement, the subsequent growth of the bureaucracy, and the dangers of a military industrial complex. Consequently, this unprecedented expansion has allowed the United States to realize a vision of "full-spectrum dominance,” with Barack Obama and Donald Trump offering contrasting opinions on the subject.
The change to a more militarized state occurred during World War II when the United States scaled up its …show more content…
He argues that states do not act rationally with an end-goal, but rather, individual actors make decisions based on their location in the bureaucracy. President Carter and his supporters reacted differently after public opinion turned against him, those in position to afflict military might argued accordingly (hawks), and people with a vested interest in peaceful outcomes were dovish (Smith 1984, 308, 312, 315). As a result, the different parts of a bureaucracy looked to pursue their own goals and how they thought the state should act. This created a principle-agent problem in an amplified form when a nation has expanded the role of the …show more content…
One, there was an overwhelming consensus of the American people to have a strong military in peacetime. The next was on the grounds of the “N + 1” theory. The United States could deter any aggression by having a military more powerful than the rest of the world combined. Third, to make sure international assets were not only protected but “[to] promote those interests actively and to do so on a global scale (Basevich 2002, 126).” Since the United States was now the undisputed leader of a once bilateral world, it should use its superior power to maximize interests in a globalized world that makes investments less secure.
This argument for the United States to wield unmatched strength in the world order is why the country has such a broad capacity to enforce full-spectrum dominance. To put it simply, the United States has the ability to enforce the international order and should shape it to maximize its utility. It allows the state to guarantee security to other countries in exchange for more favorable deals, advantageous geographical positioning, and an enhanced ability to forge
The change to a more militarized state occurred during World War II when the United States scaled up its …show more content…
He argues that states do not act rationally with an end-goal, but rather, individual actors make decisions based on their location in the bureaucracy. President Carter and his supporters reacted differently after public opinion turned against him, those in position to afflict military might argued accordingly (hawks), and people with a vested interest in peaceful outcomes were dovish (Smith 1984, 308, 312, 315). As a result, the different parts of a bureaucracy looked to pursue their own goals and how they thought the state should act. This created a principle-agent problem in an amplified form when a nation has expanded the role of the …show more content…
One, there was an overwhelming consensus of the American people to have a strong military in peacetime. The next was on the grounds of the “N + 1” theory. The United States could deter any aggression by having a military more powerful than the rest of the world combined. Third, to make sure international assets were not only protected but “[to] promote those interests actively and to do so on a global scale (Basevich 2002, 126).” Since the United States was now the undisputed leader of a once bilateral world, it should use its superior power to maximize interests in a globalized world that makes investments less secure.
This argument for the United States to wield unmatched strength in the world order is why the country has such a broad capacity to enforce full-spectrum dominance. To put it simply, the United States has the ability to enforce the international order and should shape it to maximize its utility. It allows the state to guarantee security to other countries in exchange for more favorable deals, advantageous geographical positioning, and an enhanced ability to forge