Retreat and its Consequences: American Foreign Policy and the Problem of World Order

by Robert J. Lieber

What are the consequences of retreat and retrenchment in foreign policy? In recent years, America has pulled back from its long-time role of international leadership. In doing so, the Obama administration has sought to conciliate adversaries, shown indifference to allies, called upon the international community to step in, proclaimed and then disavowed ‘red lines,’ and preferred to lead from behind in the face of catastrophic civil war in Syria, ISIS barbarism in the Middle East and North Africa, Russia’s predatory behavior in Eastern Europe, and China’s muscle-flexing in East Asia.

The consequences of this “realist” experiment have been costly and painful, and it has caused the U.S. to lose credibility with friends and foes. America retains the capacity to lead, but unless it resumes a more robust role, the world is likely to become a more dangerous place, with mounting threats not only to regional stability and international order, but to the national interests of America itself.

204 pages, Paperback

Published May 31, 2016

Reviews

[Badr · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book to escape my "America bad" bubble. It is very easy as a progressive to read endless books about America getting its grubby hands in the cookie jars of the world through regime change, support for pro-western dictatorships, covert operations, etc. Look no further than my own reading history. But even a broken clock is right twice a day, and as my friend once said, "it really sucks when the US is right."

Well, I can say that reading this book gave me a glimpse of what lies outside the bubble. I am not impressed. I did not find it a convincing argument for the practical and moral need for American hegemony. Instead, I am left with fundamental questions about our complex political landscape. Do we always need to accept the lesser of multiple evils (in this case, "softer" Western imperialism led by the US vs the "hard" imperialism of Russia, exemplified by its invasion of Ukraine). How can we reject imperialism on the whole no matter who is conducting it?

Even that dichotomy is flawed. The notion of Western imperialism being "softer" is often a veiled form of white supremacy. Is the US intervention in the Middle East not just as bad, if not worse (at least in "absolute" terms), than Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Do brown lives and political institutions not matter as much? Why is it so much more offensive to our sensibilities to see war in Europe than in the Middle East?

Before reading this book, I justified my penchant for critiquing Western foreign policy as an exercise in opposing the dominant narrative. We live in the shadow of Western hegemony. We are inundated with messaging about powers like the "Axis of Evil." But are we in a moral position to make such judgments?

In conclusion, yes, it sucks when the US is right. It continues to be important to point out when the US is wrong. This book has me thinking about the perspectives of other current powers, and more importantly, the perspectives of all the peoples bearing the brunt of other countries' foreign policy.

A few more specific observations:

1. I found the author's use of statistics misleading at times. Measures like GDP, military spending, GHG emissions, etc. were inconsistently normalized on a per capita basis to suit the author's argument.

2. For a book that fundamentally defends the need for American hegemony, the author does not spend enough time justifying it from the ground up. All he does is make general claims about the good vibes of the world in the post WW2 era (unprecedented economic growth, peace, stability, etc.). I often found myself annotating things like "for whom? At whose expense?" on such claims. I would have liked to see the argument for American hegemony to be more explicit and acknowledge its many shortcomings.

3. One of the most entertaining features of the book is the author's heavy imperialist bias - on display, among other places, in his nauseating militaryspeak. America needs to be able to "project power" to maintain "credibility" with its allies on its "security commitments." Meanwhile, China "muscle flexes" and Russia skirts international law. At least be honest and paint all of them in the same imperialist brush.

[The American Conservative]

The United States has been pursuing a grand strategy of primacy since at least the end of the Cold War. This hegemonic approach has sought, through active, deep engagement in the world, to preserve and extend the U.S.’s global dominance that followed the Soviet Union’s collapse. In other words, it has aimed to turn the unipolar moment into a unipolar era. Maintaining this dominance has meant aggressive diplomacy and the frequent display, threat, and use of military power everywhere from the Balkans to the Baltics, from Libya to Pakistan, and from the Taiwan Straits to the Korean peninsula.

Unfortunately, primacy has largely failed to deliver what must be the first, second, and third priorities for any grand strategy: the satisfaction of national interests, foremost among them America’s safety. Rather than peace and security, primacy has brought about questionable military interventions and wars of choice in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans (twice), Iraq (three times, depending on how you count), Libya, and Syria. Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to the deaths of almost 7,000 American troops, the wounding of tens of thousands more, and the filing of disability claims by nearly a million veterans. Rather than protecting the conditions of our prosperity, primacy has cost Americans dearly, with the annual defense budget now set to rise to around $600 billion and the Iraq War alone wasting trillions of dollars. As for our values, the U.S. approach has placed our nation in the uncomfortable position of defending illiberal regimes abroad, stained our reputation for the rule of law with Guantanamo and drone campaigns, and sacrificed the Constitutional authority of Congress.

http://www.theamericanconservative.co...