American Grand Strategy

emerging as major powers, many argue that U.S. dominance will soon be eclipsed, and what is known

After the civil war, United States took a turn that led them to solidify as the world power. From the late 1800s, as the US began to collect power through Cuba, Hawaii, and the Philippines, debate arose among historians about American imperialism and its behavior. Historians such as William A. Williams, Arthur Schlesinger, and Stephen Kinzer provides their own vision and how America ought to be through ideas centered around economics, power, and racial superiority.

The US’ imperialist strategy showed that it was possible to gain power in ways that were less confrontational, but just as effective, than simply taking

Michael Cox’s thesis as outlined in “Empire by Denial? Debating US Power”, is chiefly that: the United States of America is an empire, and that current beliefs to the contrary are the result of denialism due to negative connotations associated with the concept of empire, not due to a lack of suitability of that term to describe the current state of American foreign policy.

Since the end of the Second World War the United States has arguably been considered the greatest country in the world. The supposed leader of the free world, strongest and most powerful country in the world. The definition that the United States is the ‘greatest country’ in the world is open to discussion and can be compared at many different levels, however, for the purpose of this essay, the term ‘greatness’ is measured by its economic prowess and its hard power. The term ‘hard power’ is defined as ‘a coercive approach to international political relation, especially one that involves the use of military power’. After eight years of Obama doctrine, is it time to make America great again” must be broken down into two parts. What is Obama Doctrine, does it exist and then compare his Doctrine also tackle the quote of ‘making America great again’. This essay will argue that Obama Doctrine does exist and is linked to his foreign and domestic policies. It will also argue that America is still great but for different reasons. It will provide evidence that with the Obama doctrine it has moved from the historic use of hard power to a soft power footing. ‘Soft power” is defined as ‘a persuasive approach to international relations, typically involving the use of economical or cultural influence’. However, even with this switch in posture, the United States has remained great. Albeit for

From the dawn of man, the different civilizations of mankind have been out to dominate and conquest the globe. To spread his/her’s power, authority, and culture across as vast an area humanly possible. Only in the last century have these ideals been diminished, but for the U.S. during the turn of the 20th century it faced a choice on this path. Was the U.S. to remain to the domain of the contiguous United States? Or was it destined to take foot on the global stage and claim land far from it’s shores? William Graham Sumner, an American sociologist and Albert Beveridge, a U.S. senator from Indiana both disagreed as to whether imperialism was right for the country. Beveridge argues that imperialism is beneficial to the U.S. by giving access to raw materials, while Sumner fears that imposing rule on someone who does not want to be ruled makes us the exact people that we declared our independence from. This is just one example from their different views on American Imperialism.

In the last few decades of the19th century, it was a period of imperial spreading for the United States. The American story took a different route from that of its European rivals, however, because of the U.S. history of scuffle against European empires and its divine

Following the War of 1812, the United States established itself as a world power and proved its capability to protect needy nations. After the French Revolution, nations realized the importance of balancing power and recognized the dangerousness of one nation holding excessive power. (Stanley Chodorow, MacGregor Knox, Conrad Schirokauer, Joseph Strayer, Hans Gatzke 1969) For years, America held the policy of isolationism and only intervened in other countries’ affairs if necessary. Despite strained relations in the past, diplomatic relations with China began in 1979. (Andrew J. Nathan, Columbia University 2009) Last year, an American battleship entered the South China Sea, inspecting Chinese activities. As an ally and nation known to keep the

The United States hasn’t always been imperialistic. Out of the United States’ 230 years as a country, it has only been within the last 100 years it has practiced imperialism. This is due in part of the infancy of the U.S. as a nation. The U.S. maintained a policy of isolationism until the late 19th century. In the late 19th century, the U.S. began to become a major player in international trade and the arena of world affairs and therefore needed more breathing room.

Realism is one of the most dominant international relations theories in the academic world. But within Realism, Realists are split on a number of issues. A perfect example of which being the rise of China. Over the past 30 years China has increased not only in population and power, but has also achieved one of the strongest economies in the world. The rise of China is seen as problematic by many realists. Since the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has enjoyed a position of hegemony in the unipolar power structure of the world. Many fear that the rise of China could upset the current balance of power. One such individual is a prominent realist scholar, John Mearsheimer. He believes that war with China is inevitable and “calls for the US to do whatever it can to slow China’s rise.” Another political theorist Jonathan Kirshner wrote this paper to counter many of Mearsheimer’s claims, stating that Mearsheimer’s offensive realism “is wrong, and dangerous”. Kirshner suggests that instead of using offensive realism we should look instead to the theories roots in classical realism to analyse the rise of China.

American presidents have spent decades attempting to explain how a particular grand strategy benefits US foreign policy. The Obama Doctrine departs from past doctrines, representing a hybrid approach, combining two approaches to foreign policy. Although it lacks consistency, the flexibility of the Obama Doctrine defies the constraints of grand strategies to discover solutions to problems in international relations.

Many strategies have been devised by empires over centuries, these strategies and decisions have helped shape the world as it is in its present state. The author explains how strategic decisions made in the past were the wrong decisions in his opinion, as John Perkins had seen first hand the devastation that could be caused by the American government in its pursuit for a “global empire”.

The Next Decade, a novel by George Friedman, talks about the predictions of countries in the upcoming decade and how the United States should react to the various challenges. The novel’s first major claim is that the United States is actually an empire, similar to how Rome and Great Brian were. However, unlike the previous empires, the United States refuses to acknowledge its status as an empire. “What makes the United States an empire is the number of countries it affects, the intensity of the impact, and the number of people in those countries affected.” The implication of this quote is that the US has gotten to be so large, if the US decided to draw out of global affairs, the impact would be detrimental. Instead of escaping its duty to the world, Friedman claims that the United States must acknowledge its status as an empire and function as such in order to maneuver the next decade. This claim is a wise claim made by Friedman, but it his only claim of worth in the novel. In The Next Decade, Friedman fails to make his thesis credible because he doesn’t his sources, provide logical arguments on his predications of the future, or examine alternative possibilities.

The events that have taken place over the past couple of centuries, and more so the past decade, have monumentally impacted the relationship between the United States and China for better and for worse. Today, China and the U.S. have evolved into two of the most elite superpowers in the world, and they classify as some of the most prominent leaders in economics, military, technology, and universal innovation. Currently, the United States is just weeks away from electing their next president, cyber-attacks are being investigated exponentially, and the South China Sea Debate continues to be disputed. The outcomes of all these events will undoubtedly affect the relationship between China and the United States for the next 10 years.

Snyder claims that realism failed to predict the Cold War. Given this, Mearsheimer states “China cannot rise peacefully.” Since realists describe the world as a self-help system, according to Posen, every country “must look to its own interests relative to those of others” and because “security is the preeminent issue in an anarchic world, the distribution of capabilities to attack and defend should matter.” Thus, because China’s strive for regional hegemony inevitably threatens the power dynamic of the global system, the U.S. will, according to Mearsheimer, take an offensive realist approach that will eventually lead to war. In addition, as seen in post-Cold War, economic stability greatly determines the distribution of power. Friedberg notes, that the projected “speed and magnitude of China’s growth in recent decades appears to be unprecedented” and as early as 2015, “China’s economy could overtake that of the United States.” Although the U.S. faces an unprecedented challenge to economic power, according to Ikenberry, China has signaled cooperation by “redoubling its participation in existing institutions, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum and the East Asia Summit or working with the other great powers in the region to build new ones.” Nevertheless, following the actions of the U.S. post WWII, China strategically makes “itself more predictable and approachable” to reduce “the incentives for other