Competing Visions of Restraint

Bibliographic Data

ID11263182
AuthorsMiranda Priebe (Osaka Prefectural Government, corresponding author), John Schuessler (Osaka Prefectural Government), Bryan Rooney (0000-0003-4314-4699, Osaka Prefectural Government), Jasen Castillo (Osaka Prefectural Government)
Year2024
Volume49
Issue2
Pages135-169
Publication date2024-10-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueInternational Security (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0162-2889 • E-ISSN: 1531-4804
PublisherMIT Press (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1162/isec_a_00498
OpenAlexW4404333862
LanguageEN
Citations received4

At least since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, a subset of realists, conservatives, and progressives have called for greater restraint in U.S. grand strategy. Given that restraint is a key position in the grand strategy debate, this article explores the variations within restraint's big tent in greater detail. Drawing on writings by and interviews with advocates of restraint, we identify the underlying beliefs that have led these disparate groups to converge on restraint. We find that there are competing visions of restraint. Realists want to prevent the emergence of regional hegemons without provoking great power war; conservatives seek to preserve what they identify as the American way of life; and progressives are motivated by the desire to combat inequality and injustice at home and abroad. Even within each group, there are a range of underlying beliefs and foreign policy preferences, and more divisions have emerged in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and China's rise. We explore how these groups’ positions may evolve in the future as the threat environment continues to change and new policy questions emerge

Political science · Sociology · Vision · Anthropology · European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Relations and Foreign Policy

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access