Restraint Is Not Weakness

I admit Law & Liberty providing abstraction for a reappraisal of my book and inviting maine to connection a consequence to Jakub Grygiel successful these pages.

As Grygiel accurately points out, “there is truthful overmuch to deliberation done successful overseas policy, nan taxable of Emma Ashford’s First Among Equals. The past 20 years of US overseas argumentation look to person been a blip of mistaken visions, galore of which ended tragically.” On this we tin wholeheartedly agree: America has spent overmuch of nan past 30 years engaged successful fruitless crusades and attempts to reshape nan world successful our ain image, from nan Balkans to nan Middle East and beyond. As nan equilibrium of powerfulness shifts globally, however, we tin nary longer spend to fritter our scarce resources distant connected specified unachievable goals.

First Among Equals offers my imagination for nan betterment of US overseas argumentation on realist lines. I reason that it is clip to reposition ourselves to amended compete successful nan emerging world, a prime that will inevitably impact immoderate retrenchment and re-equilibration. In nan book, I propose a dialing down of US commitments successful Europe and nan Middle East, successful bid to prioritize engagement pinch Asia and Latin America. This should beryllium coupled pinch a willingness to reframe our economical engagement pinch nan world.

The United States faces clear challenges successful nan coming decades. Indeed, these challenges—most notably from China—are a awesome logic why nan United States must study to prioritize. I reason that a slimmed-down US overseas argumentation that focuses our resources connected nan astir compelling challenges is by acold nan champion measurement to guarantee that Americans tin thrive successful nan emerging world.

To do this, nan book builds connected a agelong contented of realist theorizing and reasoning astir nan world. More importantly, I besides effort to prosecute pinch each of nan halfway replacement theories of overseas policy—from wide internationalism to nan emerging “America First” worldview—on their ain terms. If America faces challenges, past unfastened statement connected really champion to meet them is simply a valuable instrumentality successful our arsenal, and 1 that differentiates america from illiberal societies for illustration Russia aliases China.

It is frankincense unfortunate that Grygiel’s reappraisal of First Among Equals does not prosecute nan overseas argumentation statement successful this manner. As nan very title of his review—“The Allure of Foreign Policy Weakness”—might suggest, he fails to earnestly dainty nan book’s cardinal arguments and alternatively paints them arsenic inaccurate strawmen.

This is peculiarly ironic fixed his halfway disapproval of nan book: that First Among Equals is simply “a doctrine based connected respective articles of faith.” In this, I plead blameworthy arsenic charged. Yet this is not possibly arsenic damning a disapproval arsenic 1 mightiness think. All expansive strategies are supported by assumptions and articles of faith, whether they are made definitive aliases kept implicit. Grygiel himself brings biases and assumptions to his review—from nan conception that important American guardant beingness is basal to constrain different states to nan thought that retrenchment is inherently risky. In nan book, I effort to make my assumptions explicit—the champion that immoderate clever clever tin do—and to backmost them pinch grounds wherever possible.

Much of his reappraisal hinges connected wide criticisms of realism aliases restraint successful US overseas policy, alternatively than nan contents of nan book itself. Grygiel, for example, elides nan truth that important abstraction is devoted successful nan book to discussing galore of nan criticisms of a realist overseas argumentation that he raises.

Consider his points astir offshore balancing. Though he restates a well-known disapproval of offshore balancing—that it tin require early US intervention—he ignores nan respective pages of nan book devoted to addressing this disapproval explicitly. To quote it briefly: “There are undoubtedly risks inherent successful this strategy, arsenic successful immoderate strategy nan United States mightiness neglect to adequately respond to threats from China aliases different states; nan United States mightiness beryllium forced to travel backmost onshore nether little favorable conditions. But though possible, these outcomes do not look likely, and nan trade-offs are worthy nan risk.”

Indeed, Grygiel’s dense reliance connected generic disapproval of realism aliases restraint offers small successful nan measurement of genuine engagement pinch nan book’s circumstantial arguments and evidence. On nan mobility of US interests, for example, he points retired that my constrictive meaning of American interests is thing pinch which everyone agrees. But while this whitethorn beryllium true, nan book itself makes nan constituent that it is not nan novelty of interests that matters. Instead, it is nan absence of an full handbasket of different purported US interests, from quality authorities to populist promotion. If a expansive strategy tin genuinely only beryllium caller aliases useful by adding caller US interests to existing ones, past nary coherent strategy for nan United States will beryllium imaginable ever again.

Likewise, he suggests that nan book is rigid, and that it argues for a “doctrinally prescribed” way which prescribes a “doctrine of retrenchment” that is “untested successful history.” Yet it is simply not existent that retrenchment is ever bad, nor that it is an “untested” strategy during changes successful nan equilibrium of power. One historical study of awesome powerfulness retrenchment recovered that awesome powers that successfully retrench and reprioritize do amended than those that don’t; 15 of nan eighteen cases discussed by nan authors didn’t consequence successful war. Our ain caller history besides suggests that targeted retrenchment tin work; would America person fared truthful good successful nan Cold War, for example, if Nixon had not extricated america from Vietnam?

Ultimately, Grygiel argues for a continuation of existing policies and dismisses nan replacement offered successful nan book, pointing to nan risks it whitethorn create. Yet each strategies person risks and costs. The continuation of nan position quo that Grygiel endorses would itself require America to prolong a important subject beingness passim nan world, to supply information for galore different states astatine nan disbursal of nan US taxpayer, and to prolong nan world’s largest subject force. As others person persuasively argued, this would require a important increase successful our already important defense budget; it besides risks overstretch and unintentional conflict pinch China, Russia, and different states.

In First among Equals, I effort to connection a good-faith statement for really America tin adequately bring intends and ends into alignment successful overseas argumentation while avoiding that overstretch. I firmly judge that a much humble and sustainable overseas argumentation is nan champion action to let Americans to prosper and beryllium unafraid good into nan twenty-first century—without spending and arming ourselves into a garrison state. Grygiel’s position is that this is simply a weakness. But immoderate scholar who harbors doubts astir nan sustainability of America’s coming course—or who disagrees pinch his characterization of prioritization and strategical realignment arsenic “weakness”—should see picking up First Among Equals and determine for yourself if nan statement holds up to scrutiny.