The Cautious Approach to U.S. Grand Strategies in Foreign Policy
While there is a general consensus that in the post-Cold War era, the United States emerged as the world’s unipolar superpower, the role of superpower continues to be widely debated. Political realists err on the cautious side and see other state actors as possible threats not only to the balance of power, but also to the U.S. itself. Realist policy prepares for the worst. Neoconservatives believe that the U.S.’s democratic idea and values must be shared with those who don’t have them, and the only fit actor to do so is the United States. I must urge the application of realist theory to influence grand strategy of U.S. Foreign Policy. A realist approach is superior than to neoconservative theory as it is more economically sound, ensures the security of the U.S. and its citizens, and is far more ethical than strategies …show more content…
must fight for it. Neoconservatives find that the U.S. has the values and ideals that everyone longs for, and that being the greatest superpower, the U.S. ought to fight for those rights. Neoconservatives want to spread democracy through force against dictators and often believe preemption is just.
A grand strategy offered by a neoconservative might be Deep Engagement. Spreading democracy and civil liberties abroad sounds great, but often they create more anti-American sentiment. U.S. engagement that attacks other civilizations cultures and identities is often a lost cause. When attempting to fight other people’s cultures, there tends to be serious backlash (Posen4). Just as neo-conservatism strategy was used in Iraq, though at first the benefits seemed good, later the consequences grew and eventually outweighed any perceived benefit. The neoconservative model for grand strategy is broken. The concept that U.S. military force would simply make democracy is flawed in itself
While there is a general consensus that in the post-Cold War era, the United States emerged as the world’s unipolar superpower, the role of superpower continues to be widely debated. Political realists err on the cautious side and see other state actors as possible threats not only to the balance of power, but also to the U.S. itself. Realist policy prepares for the worst. Neoconservatives believe that the U.S.’s democratic idea and values must be shared with those who don’t have them, and the only fit actor to do so is the United States. I must urge the application of realist theory to influence grand strategy of U.S. Foreign Policy. A realist approach is superior than to neoconservative theory as it is more economically sound, ensures the security of the U.S. and its citizens, and is far more ethical than strategies …show more content…
must fight for it. Neoconservatives find that the U.S. has the values and ideals that everyone longs for, and that being the greatest superpower, the U.S. ought to fight for those rights. Neoconservatives want to spread democracy through force against dictators and often believe preemption is just.
A grand strategy offered by a neoconservative might be Deep Engagement. Spreading democracy and civil liberties abroad sounds great, but often they create more anti-American sentiment. U.S. engagement that attacks other civilizations cultures and identities is often a lost cause. When attempting to fight other people’s cultures, there tends to be serious backlash (Posen4). Just as neo-conservatism strategy was used in Iraq, though at first the benefits seemed good, later the consequences grew and eventually outweighed any perceived benefit. The neoconservative model for grand strategy is broken. The concept that U.S. military force would simply make democracy is flawed in itself