Strongly agree with the spirit of the new @QuincyInst--to find a more discriminate and restrained US global approach. As advocates work out such an agenda, though, we'll have to take seriously at least three challenges: 1/6
politi.co/33HULty via @politico
politi.co/33HULty via @politico
1. Distinguishing arguments for effective restraint from attacks on the malign goals of an American imperialist project. They are two different things. The more an agenda sounds like the latter, the less support it will gain from elected officials, the public and allies. 2/6
2. Developing well-defended alternative strategies to achieve US goals, rather than merely demanding "an end" to things. Example: No US administration will abandon global CT, so what does a more restrained but still effective approach look like? 3/6
Advocates of restraint have always run afoul of the fact that political pressures make it tough to abandon commitments. In other cases, abandonment could spark new endless wars. Polemics won't get where we want to go--only analytically-grounded strategies will do that 4/6
3. We advocates for more restrained US foreign policy will also have to take very seriously the odd timing of this agenda--coming just as the US faces the rising challenge of an autocratic, belligerent China, which will demand in some cases more not less US engagement 5/6
If the goal is to make an agenda of restraint + less military-centric view of national power the new conv wisdom, we'll need coherent alternative approaches to advancing US global interests. Still a long way to go on that front. 6/6
