READ 3: Strategies of Restraint: Remaking America's Broken Foreign Policy
Strategies of Restraint: Remaking America's Broken Foreign Policy
Post-Cold War U.S. Foreign Policy Consensus
For nearly three decades after the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy was driven by a bipartisan consensus.
Core Belief: The United States, as the "indispensable nation" with no major competitor, had to pursue a transformational agenda globally.
Collapse of the Consensus and Rise of Restraint
Factors Contributing to Collapse:
Failure of the U.S. "war on terror."
The rise of China as a global power.
Increasing partisan polarization domestically.
Emergence of Restraint: A growing movement advocating a less activist foreign policy.
Emphasis on diplomatic and economic engagement.
De-emphasis on military intervention.
Once confined to academia, restraint is now gaining traction in policy circles.
Recent Political Shifts:
President Donald Trump: Questioned U.S. alliances, military intervention, and democracy promotion; wound down the war in Afghanistan (though his policy lacked coherence).
President Joe Biden: Initiated withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan; began a review of global military posture; took steps to stabilize U.S.-Russian relations. His National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan, previously noted the need to understand "both the possibilities and the limits of American power."
The Broader Debate: Three Emerging Views
The U.S. foreign policy community now acknowledges the need for a course correction, but views differ on the specifics.
1. Modified Liberal Internationalism:
Core Belief: U.S. leadership is a stabilizing force, emphasizing militarized deterrence and a liberal, rules-based international order.
Threat Perception: Views threats from China and Russia primarily as challenges to this international order, rather than direct U.S. security interests.
Evolution: A softer, reformed version of the post-Cold War consensus, incorporating critiques of past U.S. foreign policy and rejecting parts of the "war on terror."
Key Distinction: More aware of the "limits of American power" than earlier liberal interventionists.
Proponents: Scholars like Mira Rapp-Hooper and Rebecca Lissner (now on the National Security Council), who advocate focusing U.S. power on "what it can realistically achieve" rather than quixotic bids to restore the liberal order or remake the world.
2. Belligerent Unilateralism ("America First"):
Core Belief: Prioritizes maintaining U.S. military primacy and national interests over a liberal international order.
Successor to Old Consensus: Shifts from democracy promotion and nation-building towards a militarized global presence, akin to "classic imperial policing."
Rejection of Liberal Components: Spurns diplomacy, arms control, and multilateral solutions; instead, fetishizes sovereignty and prefers American solutions.
Proponents: Trump administration alumni and mainstream Republican foreign policy figures. Nadia Schadlow (veteran of Trump White House) argued Washington must "let go of old illusions, move past the myths of liberal internationalism."
Critique: May yield short-term gains (e.g., sanctions, trade renegotiation) but has diminishing returns as coercive tools breed resistance. Heavy reliance on forward military presence risks unintended conflict, especially in Asia.
3. Restraint:
Core Convictions (shared by most):
The United States is a remarkably secure nation due to geography and nuclear weapons, facing no real threat of invasion.
U.S. foreign policy has suffered from overreach and hubris, leading to abysmal results.
U.S. foreign policy is overmilitarized, with excessive defense spending and quick resort to force.
Rejects the notion of the United States as the "indispensable nation," seeing it as one among many global powers.
Critique of Other Approaches: Liberal internationalism overestimates allied contributions and underestimates differences; "America First" has diminishing returns and risks conflict.
The "Restraint Moment" and its Diverse Nature
Common Criticism of Restrainers: Seen as offering criticism without plausible policy alternatives. While individual proponents offer detailed prescriptions, the movement often focuses on shared criticisms rather than specific replacement policies.
Types of Restraint:
Academic Grand Strategy (Well-Defined):
Barry Posen's "Restraint": Envisions a much smaller military based primarily within the United States.
Offshore Balancing (Mearsheimer and Walt): Calls for downsizing the global military role but admits occasional intervention in key regions to prevent hostile states from dominating.
These academic theories provide coherent, fully formulated approaches but leave granular policy details open.
Looser, Broader Political Movement: Washington shorthand for any proposal for a less militarized and activist foreign policy.
Includes academic realists, progressive Democrats, conservative Republicans (e.g., in Congress), and various anti-war groups (e.g., Code Pink, Common Defense).
Motivations for Restraint (a "big tent" coalition):
Moral Considerations: Libertarians believe war expands the state; anti-imperialists target the military-industrial complex.
Financial Reasons: Conservative deficit hawks and many progressives view military cuts as a way to free resources for domestic programs (infrastructure, social services).
Personal Experiences: Veterans driving activism to end the "war on terror," concerned about its impact on soldiers and society.
Strategic Rationale: To avoid failures and risks of the current interventionist approach.
"Restraint-Curious": Individuals open to a more restrained foreign policy on specific issues but not the broader notion.
Transpartisan Strength: A broad, bipartisan coalition of left and right, often disagreeing on other issues but united on foreign policy restraint.
Examples: Congressional activism to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen (led by Bernie Sanders, Chris Murphy, Rand Paul, Mike Lee); advocates for Afghanistan withdrawal (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Matt Gaetz).
Historical Context: Opposition to activist foreign policy has always existed (e.g., Spanish-American War opponents, League of Nations critics, Vietnam War protestors). Post-Cold War, these voices were dismissed as "unrealistic" or "isolationist."
Current Influence: Driven by the public failure of the "war on terrorism," the shifting global balance of power (U.S. relative decline, China's rise), domestic political polarization, and widespread public support for diplomacy over military intervention.
Successes and Internal Divisions of Restraint
Notable Successes (primarily Middle East/Afghanistan):
U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan after 20 years (initiated by Trump administration).
Congressional curtailment of U.S. military support for the war in Yemen.
Biden administration reviews of global force posture and sanctions.
Suspension of precision-guided munitions sales to Saudi Arabia.
Opening of strategic stability talks with Russia.
Drawdown of U.S. missile and air forces from the Middle East.
Growing Mainstream Acceptance: Establishment figures now voice criticisms previously restricted to restrainers (e.g., Mara Karlin and Tamara Cofman Wittes on Middle East overextension; Martin Indyk stating the Middle East "isn't worth it anymore").
Challenges and Internal Disagreements: Victories concentrated where strategic bankruptcy was obvious and public opinion was strong (Middle East/Afghanistan). Restrainers now face harder issues where they are divided.
Trade Policy:
Realists: Often classical liberals, viewing free trade as a core U.S. interest.
Progressives: Pro-labor, advocate using leverage "to force other countries to raise the bar on everything from labor and environmental standards to anti-corruption rules" (Elizabeth Warren).
Implication: Trade wars could complicate burden-shifting to allies and managing friction with China.
Immigration: Progressives often support greater immigration, while more conservative restrainers oppose it.
Degree of Military Retrenchment:
Most academic restrainers agree on moving forces offshore, but disagree on how far.
Barry Posen's vision: A fully implemented strategy of restraint could save 1 ext{ trillion} over ten years.
Kathleen Hicks's proposal (more limited): Estimated savings of 20- ext{30 billion} a year.
Future of U.S. Alliances:
Shared Consensus: Alliances entail downsides (free-riding, entanglement risk) and require reform.
Divisions: Some seek to mitigate risks/costs by downsizing military or burden-sharing. Others advocate for complete withdrawal from permanent alliances.
Public/Political View: Alliances remain widely popular; few Americans want to gut NATO. Even Bernie Sanders, while calling for European allies to spend more, sees alliances as valuable.
Asia: Partnerships deemed necessary for dealing with China even under offshore balancing.
Response to China:
Realists (e.g., Mearsheimer and Walt): See China's rise as foundational, likely to seek hegemony in Asia. Advocate restructuring U.S. force posture to focus on China threat, and reconsidering risky security commitments (especially Taiwan).
Second Camp: Believe retrenchment, homeland defense, and nuclear weapons are sufficient to preserve U.S. interests, viewing China as a threat to primacy, not security.
Third Camp (Progressives): View China primarily through the lens of shared challenges like climate change, advocating for multilateralism, diplomacy, and cooperation to address existential threats.
Concern: These differences on China may be irreconcilable, potentially leading to the restraint movement's success in the Middle East but failure on China policy.
A Path Forward: "Realist Internationalism" and Moderation
Proposed Strategy: A foreign policy that is "realist yet not doctrinaire, internationalist yet prudent," suitable for a world where the U.S. is "first among equals."
Key Components:
Global Role: U.S. acting as a "convener" on common concerns (e.g., climate change), building coalitions rather than dictating policies.
Military Size & Posture: Focus on "sufficiency" rather than "primacy," prioritizing forces for homeland defense and core security interests.
Global Retrenchment: Reduction in the U.S. network of overseas bases.
Burden Sharing: Pushing allies to take greater responsibility for their own defense.
Europe: Gradually end U.S. military presence over years, bolster European homegrown capabilities to deter Russia.
Asia: Resist further U.S. military buildup; increase capabilities of Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Southeast Asian allies.
Great-Power Relations: Hedge bets on China and Russia by maintaining necessary defense capabilities while avoiding destabilizing arms races and security dilemmas.
Importance of Moderation and Pragmatism:
Avoid immediate or complete withdrawal from Europe or Asia, as this could be destabilizing.
Ending alliances should be a last resort, not a first. Policymakers must grapple with the world as it is.
This vision is more politically viable, as initiatives like burden-sharing and gradual troop drawdown are more publicly acceptable than a campaign to leave NATO.
Restrainers' core contribution is to resist grand crusades and transformational goals (e.g., war on terror, democracy vs. autocracy struggle).
Cautions Against Internal Compromise for External Alignment:
Risk: Solving minor problems while leaving major ones untouched.
Example 1: Cutting defense budget without rolling back massive forward-deployed presence could leave a hollow, weak force prone to unintended conflict.
Example 2: Getting allies to pay more without reducing U.S. commitments to non-treaty allies is financially prudent but not strategically sound.
Political Alliances: Warnings against progressives partnering with liberal internationalists if it leads to supporting actions like Ukraine's NATO membership that could undermine anti-war goals; or offshore balancers partnering with hawkish unilateralists on China, risking a far riskier approach.
Avoid getting "sucked more deeply into partisan fights over foreign policy."
Call for Unity: Restrainers should stick together as a transpartisan bloc, compromising internally to advance a shared vision.
Potential Internal Compromises: Grand strategy proponents accepting less radical military retrenchment; offshore balancers accepting difficulties in ambitious alliance reforms; progressives acknowledging that some problems (e.g., oppression abroad) cannot be solved by diplomacy or sanctions alone.
Prioritize shared vision and differences with the "splintering consensus" over internal divisions.