Affirmative Statement
The current interventionist foreign policy that has driven the U.S. to accept an overwhelming amount of responsibility for maintaining the global order -- a commitment of such great magnitude that it should not be the burden of a single state, even a superpower such as the U.S. that “dominate[s] the world militarily, economically, and politically” (Posen 117). Emboldened by assumptions of American geopolitical strengths, the U.S. has pursued nation-building operations that serve as a detriment to both the federal budget and their international reputation.
Instead, a return to the pre-WWII foreign policy of offshore balancing would reallocate resources from futile nation-building exercises towards preserving American dominance …show more content…
Offshore balancing also reduces human costs by risking fewer American lives in conflicts not of national interest, as well as the inherent costs of supporting wounded veterans and the mental health risks that accompany military service (Mearsheimer 24). Reducing military occupation abroad would also engineer security benefits, as it would decelerate anti-American nationalist resentment and prevent future terrorist movements from gaining momentum from American intervention because instead of pursuing social engineering and democratic reform, the U.S. would only be present to counter a potential hegemon that would threaten local politics (Posen 121). This would be a step towards reinventing the American image abroad as a crusader for human rights and international law, than as a domineering force seeking to undermine local political arrangements and …show more content…
Because deterrence best enforced through “coordinated multilateral pressure and tough economic sanctions,” nuclear proliferation can be discouraged without military occupation, which heightens tensions and drives 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 actual implications in 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 quickly escalate into a second Cold War or even unintentional nuclear warfare itself (Posen
The current interventionist foreign policy that has driven the U.S. to accept an overwhelming amount of responsibility for maintaining the global order -- a commitment of such great magnitude that it should not be the burden of a single state, even a superpower such as the U.S. that “dominate[s] the world militarily, economically, and politically” (Posen 117). Emboldened by assumptions of American geopolitical strengths, the U.S. has pursued nation-building operations that serve as a detriment to both the federal budget and their international reputation.
Instead, a return to the pre-WWII foreign policy of offshore balancing would reallocate resources from futile nation-building exercises towards preserving American dominance …show more content…
Offshore balancing also reduces human costs by risking fewer American lives in conflicts not of national interest, as well as the inherent costs of supporting wounded veterans and the mental health risks that accompany military service (Mearsheimer 24). Reducing military occupation abroad would also engineer security benefits, as it would decelerate anti-American nationalist resentment and prevent future terrorist movements from gaining momentum from American intervention because instead of pursuing social engineering and democratic reform, the U.S. would only be present to counter a potential hegemon that would threaten local politics (Posen 121). This would be a step towards reinventing the American image abroad as a crusader for human rights and international law, than as a domineering force seeking to undermine local political arrangements and …show more content…
Because deterrence best enforced through “coordinated multilateral pressure and tough economic sanctions,” nuclear proliferation can be discouraged without military occupation, which heightens tensions and drives 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 actual implications in 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 quickly escalate into a second Cold War or even unintentional nuclear warfare itself (Posen