INTRODUCTION Considering the position of America as both the global authoritative superpower and a centrally involved participant in world affairs, any action taken to adjust the current grand strategy will have vast ramifications on all actors in the international system. Ultimately, the decision will fall upon the shoulders of our future president; whether Donald Trump will continue the political status quo of deep engagement or follow through on his “Make America Great Again” campaign remains to be seen, and could depend on the influence of various actors pursuing their domestic and global interests.
Friendly regional and international organizations favor American deep engagement in order to prevent America from pulling out of NATO and …show more content…
In actuality, offshore balancing “is a time-honored formula” that represented the primary model for American foreign policy until the conclusion of World War II (Brands 11). Throughout the 19th century and even after WWI, the American public firmly rejected any internationalist inclinations and refused to intervene abroad beyond basic financial assistance, even turning down a central international role within the League of Nations (Kagan para. 8). This restrained foreign policy and “America First” ideal persisted as the public sought to preserve military and economic independence despite worldwide economic stagnation (Kagan para. 9). This view radically changed after WWII, in which the American “acquisitive drive for wealth and happiness, their love of commerce, their economic and (in earlier times) territorial expansiveness, and their universalistic ideology” prompted the public to reconsider their stance on foreign engagement (Kagan para. 6). Then, with the advent of the Cold War, in which American allies were relatively weak in comparison to the Soviet Union, the U.S. felt obligated to prevent Soviet encroachment into regions laden with critical resources that would foster the growth of communism and obstruct American interests abroad (Brands 11; Brooks, Ikenberry, Wohlforth 130). Since …show more content…
Because deterrence is best enforced through “coordinated multilateral pressure and tough economic sanctions,” nuclear proliferation can be discouraged without military occupation, which serves to heighten tensions and drive nuclear development as a method of neutralizing American advantages (Mearsheimer and Walt 79; Posen 120). Although there is the possibility that some vulnerable states may seek nuclear weapons to bolster their security, it is likely to be a costly and ineffective endeavor with few negative repercussions within the international system (Mearsheimer and Walt 79). Offshore balancing is ultimately the better alternative to fighting “preventive conventional warfare against nascent nuclear powers,” which could escalate into a second Cold War or even unintentional nuclear warfare itself (Posen
Friendly regional and international organizations favor American deep engagement in order to prevent America from pulling out of NATO and …show more content…
In actuality, offshore balancing “is a time-honored formula” that represented the primary model for American foreign policy until the conclusion of World War II (Brands 11). Throughout the 19th century and even after WWI, the American public firmly rejected any internationalist inclinations and refused to intervene abroad beyond basic financial assistance, even turning down a central international role within the League of Nations (Kagan para. 8). This restrained foreign policy and “America First” ideal persisted as the public sought to preserve military and economic independence despite worldwide economic stagnation (Kagan para. 9). This view radically changed after WWII, in which the American “acquisitive drive for wealth and happiness, their love of commerce, their economic and (in earlier times) territorial expansiveness, and their universalistic ideology” prompted the public to reconsider their stance on foreign engagement (Kagan para. 6). Then, with the advent of the Cold War, in which American allies were relatively weak in comparison to the Soviet Union, the U.S. felt obligated to prevent Soviet encroachment into regions laden with critical resources that would foster the growth of communism and obstruct American interests abroad (Brands 11; Brooks, Ikenberry, Wohlforth 130). Since …show more content…
Because deterrence is best enforced through “coordinated multilateral pressure and tough economic sanctions,” nuclear proliferation can be discouraged without military occupation, which serves to heighten tensions and drive nuclear development as a method of neutralizing American advantages (Mearsheimer and Walt 79; Posen 120). Although there is the possibility that some vulnerable states may seek nuclear weapons to bolster their security, it is likely to be a costly and ineffective endeavor with few negative repercussions within the international system (Mearsheimer and Walt 79). Offshore balancing is ultimately the better alternative to fighting “preventive conventional warfare against nascent nuclear powers,” which could escalate into a second Cold War or even unintentional nuclear warfare itself (Posen