Skip to content
Member Login
Grand Strategy

What Would “Restraint” Really Mean for U.S. Foreign Policy?

Proponents of restraint need to clarify what the term means, how to implement it, and its implications for U.S. national interests and world order. 

 

A convoy of U.S. vehicles withdraws from northern Syria, in Erbil, Iraq, on October 21, 2019. Azad Lashkari/Reuters

By experts and staff

Published

By

  • Stewart M. Patrick
    James H. Binger Senior Fellow in Global Governance and Director of the International Institutions and Global Governance Program

In my weekly column for World Politics Review, I examine the notion of restraint in U.S. foreign policy and discuss some of its far-reaching implications.

After decades of American global engagement, the concept of “restraint” is having its moment, and understandably so. Thirty years after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Americans are weary of foreign misadventures, whether undertaken by neoconservatives or liberal interventionists, and they want more attention and resources devoted to challenges at home. The national security establishment may still endorse U.S. primacy, backed by a global network of alliances, the forward deployment of American troops, “onshore balancing” in Europe and Asia, and democracy promotion around the world. The public is more circumspect, preferring a restrained internationalism.

Read the full World Politics Review article here.