Primed against Primacy: The Restraint Constituency and U.S. Foreign Policy
This article appeared on War on the Rocks on September 15, 2016.
http://www.cato.org/ publications/commentary/ primed-against-primacy- restraint-constituency-us- foreign-policy
http://www.cato.org/
In 1998, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told Matt Lauer on NBC’s Today Show:
“If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the
indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.”
Albright’s view was anything but unique to her or to the Clinton
administration. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a strong
bipartisan consensus in favor of frequent American military intervention
has reigned in Washington. Even President Obama, who came into office calling for greater restraint than
his predecessor, expanded the “war on terror,” engaged in regime change
in Libya, and extended the mission in Afghanistan — America’s longest
war. Facing vocal critics who seek to increase American intervention not
just in the Middle East but also in conflicts throughout the world,
Obama was unable to implement many of the more restrained policies he
advocated.
Though the restraint constituency enjoys an advantage on many important foreign policy issues, public fears about terrorism and other global conflicts will continue to be a significant challenge for restraint-minded policymakers. Framing world events as “other people’s business,” reminding the public of the costs of major war, and pursuing an active noninterventionist counterterrorism strategy can help policymakers encourage public support for a more restrained foreign policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment