The Uncomfortable Truth of American Power: From Expansion to Expediency
The United States didn’t stumble into global dominance through charm or diplomacy. It took it – a blunt assessment offered by Brookings’ Michael O’Hanlon, and one that carries increasingly urgent implications for the future of U.S. foreign policy. This historical reality, often glossed over, is now colliding with a new era of American assertiveness, raising critical questions about the motivations driving current actions and the potential consequences for global stability.
The Legacy of Expansion: A Foundation Built on Assertiveness
O’Hanlon’s argument, laid out in his new book To Dare Mighty Things, isn’t a condemnation of American power. Rather, it’s a call for honest self-assessment. He points out that the very capabilities that allowed the U.S. to prevail in the World Wars – and subsequently shape the Cold War – were forged during periods often characterized as isolationist. From the late 19th century through the interwar years, the U.S. invested heavily in military innovation and leadership development, laying the groundwork for future conflicts. Figures like Rear Admiral William Moffett, pioneering naval aviation, and Army Brig. Gen. Billy Mitchell, championing air power, were operating during a time when America wasn’t actively seeking global entanglement. This period of focused development, ironically, was crucial to its later global role.
Innovation in ‘Isolation’: Preparing for Future Conflicts
The speed with which the U.S. mobilized and gained momentum in World War II, despite initial unpreparedness, is a testament to this earlier investment. As O’Hanlon notes, by early 1943, the U.S. was effectively winning the war – a faster turnaround than many other conflicts in its history. This wasn’t luck; it was the result of deliberate, long-term strategic thinking and a willingness to push the boundaries of military technology. This historical context is vital when evaluating current U.S. strategy.
The Ideological Engine of Intervention
Historian Robert Kagan adds another layer to this understanding, highlighting the deeply ingrained ideological component of American foreign policy. From the 1820s, the U.S. has consistently demonstrated a tendency to intervene – or at least express concern – when it perceives threats to liberal values. This “universalist ideology,” as Kagan describes it, isn’t simply about altruism; it’s a fundamental part of the American self-perception. However, this impulse often clashes with the realities of national security and the desire to avoid prolonged entanglement, creating a recurring tension in U.S. foreign policy. This tension is at the heart of the debate over the appropriate level of U.S. involvement in global affairs.
From Attack to Preemption: Shifting Justifications for Force
Retired Gen. David Petraeus offered a pragmatic perspective, grounding U.S. interventions in responses to direct attacks (like Pearl Harbor) or perceived threats from hostile powers. However, he also acknowledged the potential for miscalculation, citing Vietnam as a case where nationalist motivations were underestimated. The current situation, with concerns about China and Russia’s growing influence, echoes this Cold War logic, but with a crucial difference. As Kagan points out, the justifications for intervention are becoming increasingly detached from traditional security concerns and tied to the domestic political agenda of the current administration.
The Trump Factor: A Departure from Historical Norms
Kagan’s assessment is particularly stark: the current administration, unlike its predecessors, doesn’t simply vacillate between intervention and retrenchment; it actively rejects the core principles of liberalism. This shift is reflected in a new approach to foreign policy – one characterized by “decapitation” strikes (like the targeting of Maduro in Venezuela) followed by a hands-off approach to the aftermath. This is a departure from the post-World War II model of occupation and nation-building, and it raises serious questions about the long-term consequences of U.S. actions. The focus on avoiding U.S. casualties, while understandable, further reinforces this trend towards limited, low-risk interventions. The Council on Foreign Relations provides further analysis of this shift.
The Future of American Power: A Pragmatic, Risk-Averse Approach?
The confluence of these perspectives suggests a potentially troubling trajectory for U.S. foreign policy. The historical understanding of American power – built on a foundation of expansion, innovation, and ideological conviction – is being replaced by a more pragmatic, risk-averse approach driven by domestic political considerations. This doesn’t necessarily mean the U.S. will abandon its global role, but it does suggest a future characterized by targeted interventions, a reluctance to commit to long-term engagements, and a willingness to prioritize short-term gains over long-term stability. The challenge will be to reconcile this new reality with the enduring need for American leadership in a complex and increasingly dangerous world. What are the implications of this shift for U.S. alliances and the global balance of power? That remains to be seen.
What are your predictions for the future of American foreign policy? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
