Foreign Policy

Foreign Policy Restraint: Libertarians, Realists, and the Restraint Coalition

I. The Coalition for Foreign Policy Restraint

The coalition for foreign policy restraint brings together very different ideological groups that normally disagree on domestic policy but converge on one issue:

Groups in this coalition include:

• Libertarians

• Realists

• Progressives who advocate restraint

They disagree on economics, social policy, and governance—but align on military restraint.

II. Libertarians: Core Beliefs

A. Fundamental Principle: Individual Liberty

Libertarianism is built around maximizing individual freedom and minimizing government power.

Key features:

• Small government

• Strong civil liberties

• Minimal regulation

• Free markets

Libertarians are often described in academic literature as neoliberal in economics (not to be confused with liberalism in everyday language).

B. Domestic Policy Positions

Economics

• Strongly pro–free market

• Low taxes

• Minimal regulation

• Opposed to redistribution and large welfare states

• Skeptical of labour unions

Civil liberties

• Strong free speech protections

• Opposed to mass surveillance

• Deeply skeptical of a large “national security state”

Social issues (where they differ from many conservatives)

• Pro-LGBTQ rights (including marriage equality)

• Pro-choice on abortion

• Support personal autonomy in lifestyle decisions

Gun rights

• Opposed to most gun control

• View gun ownership as an individual freedom

III. Libertarians and Foreign Policy Restraint

A. Opposition to Military Intervention

Libertarians strongly oppose:

• Foreign wars

• Military “adventures” overseas

• High military spending

Many libertarians historically opposed:

• NATO membership

• U.S. entanglements abroad

This often takes the form of isolationism:

• “If it doesn’t directly threaten us, it’s not our problem”

B. Why Libertarians Oppose War

1. War expands the state
A core libertarian belief (often attributed to Milton Friedman):

Wars lead to:

• Higher taxes (e.g., income tax expansion during WWII)

• More regulation

• Government control over production

• Larger bureaucracies

• Powers that never fully disappear after the war

2. The national security state

• Surveillance

• Intelligence agencies monitoring citizens

• Laws like the U.S. Patriot Act after 9/11

• Airport security, data collection, cameras, etc.

Libertarians argue:

3. Cost

• Wars cost trillions of dollars

• Military hardware (jets, weapons systems) is extremely expensive

• Libertarians oppose using tax revenue this way

IV. Libertarians and Globalization

A. Economic Globalization: Strong Support

Libertarians strongly support:

• Free trade

• Capital mobility

• Cross-border investment

• Organizations like the WTO

They believe:

• “Tariffs are taxes”

• Markets should operate globally with minimal interference

B. Immigration

Libertarians are pro-immigration:

• Labour should move as freely as capital

• Immigration benefits businesses

• In a pure libertarian world, borders would be minimal

This puts them at odds with:

• Conservative nationalists

• Some working-class protectionist movements

C. Opposition to Social Globalization

Libertarians oppose:

• International tax coordination

• Global labour regulations

• Environmental agreements

• Climate change treaties

Their view:

They therefore dislike:

• UN environmental initiatives

• International labour standards

• Global tax regimes

V. Libertarians in Politics

Libertarians are usually found:

• Within conservative parties (e.g., U.S. Republicans)

• In libertarian parties (Canada, U.S.)

• In free-market think tanks

Examples:

• Cato Institute (U.S.)

• Fraser Institute (Canada)

They often ally with conservatives because:

• Economic freedom is their top priority

• Social issues are secondary to them

VI. Realism: A Different Path to Restraint

A. What Is Realism?

Realism is an international relations theory focused on:

• Power

• Survival

• National interest

Core assumptions:

• States act based on interests, not values

• Power matters more than ideals

• International law and institutions have limited influence

Realists argue:

B. Who Supports Realism?

Realism is often associated with:

• Military officers

• Intelligence officials

• National security professionals

• Technocrats

It lacks a clear domestic ideology because:

• Realists believe domestic politics doesn’t matter much in foreign policy

• All states behave similarly under pressure

Politically, realists are often:

• Moderate conservatives

VII. Realists and Military Power

A. Strong Military, Limited Use

Realists:

• Support high military spending

• Believe in deterrence (“peace through strength”)

• Want a military powerful enough that others won’t attack

But:

• They oppose frequent military intervention

• They reject wars of choice

The military is a tool, not a solution to all problems.

B. Deterrence and Containment

Deterrence

• Strong military prevents attacks

Containment

• Stop threats from expanding

• Do not try to remake other societies

• Avoid “rollback” or regime change

This was the dominant Cold War strategy.

VIII. Realists vs Other Approaches

A. Critique of Neoconservatives

Realists reject:

• Democracy promotion by force

• Nation-building

• Belief that military power can transform societies

Example:

• They supported Afghanistan after 9/11

• They opposed the 2003 Iraq War

Why?

• Iraq was unrelated to 9/11

• Saddam Hussein was already contained

• War costs exceeded benefits

B. Critique of Liberal Internationalists

Realists argue:

• Promoting values abroad often backfires

• Interventions generate resentment and nationalism

• Good intentions don’t guarantee good outcomes

IX. Realism in Practice: The Gulf War (1991)

A classic realist war:

• Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait

• The U.S. intervened to push Iraq back

• The U.S. did not overthrow Saddam

Why this fits realism:

• Clear national interest (oil, stability)

• Limited objective

• No regime change

• Containment achieved

Contrast:

• 2003 Iraq War = neoconservative war of choice

X. Realists on Nuclear Weapons

Realists believe in mutually assured destruction (MAD):

• Nuclear weapons deter war

• Once both sides have nukes, war becomes irrational

This leads to controversial positions:

• Realists are not always opposed to nuclear proliferation

• They argue deterrence can stabilize rivalries

Example:

• Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is seen as less dangerous than war to stop it

XI. Realists and Ukraine

Realist position on Ukraine:

• Ukraine matters more to Russia than to the West

• Russia will always be willing to pay higher costs

• NATO expansion near Russia’s border provoked conflict

• Continued Western support prolongs war without changing outcome

Conclusion:

• Ukraine should negotiate

• Prolonged war harms Ukraine more than it weakens Russia

This reflects realism’s focus on spheres of influence.

XII. The Quincy Institute and the Restraint Coalition

In 2019, advocates of restraint formed the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

It brings together:

• Libertarians

• Realists

• Progressive restrainers

Shared belief:

• Reduce military intervention

• Avoid “forever wars”

• Focus on diplomacy and restraint

They agree on restraint despite deep disagreements elsewhere.

XIII. Final Takeaways

• Libertarians oppose war because it expands government and threatens liberty

• Realists oppose war because it often fails to serve national interest

• Both support military restraint, but for different reasons

• Restraint refers only to military intervention, not trade or aid

• The restraint coalition emerged after costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan