Historical/Foundational Assumptions Underpinning American Grand Strategy
Provide a 350-500 word answer to:
QUESTION C: In the article, “Stress-Testing the Foundations of American Grand Strategy,” Brands and Feaver analyze and challenge some of the historical/foundational assumptions underpinning American Grand Strategy. In light of their analysis, is it more in the United States’ interest to focus on consolidating and rebuilding global influence through soft power, or to more assertively try to curb China's rise?
Justify and support your answer using your experience and source support from the assigned readings.
ARTICLE REQUIRED SOURCE: https://warontherocks(dot)com/2016/12/stress-testing-the-foundations-of-american-grand-strategy/
*When you place your in-text citation within the answer, please input your page number where you found the information. Example: (Hodges 2003, 176)., Hodges (2003, 176) discussed..., In a 2003 article, Hodges (176) discussed.
Air710a-Framing New End States
Course
Professor
Date
Countries such as the US and Russia were influential in the outcome of the Second World War, resulting in their dominance in global politics, including the spread of their ideologies, such as capitalism and communism. The US has adopted a grand strategy that is geared towards promoting its liberal international order and primacy (Brands and Feaver 2016). Initially, the grand strategy thrived, and the US managed to maintain its dominance; however, over time, its influence is slowly fading and facilitated by the rise of other global powers, such as China, which currently has trade and diplomatic relations with countries in Asia, Africa, and South America. In light of Brands and Feaver’s analysis, it is more in the US’ interest to focus on consolidating and rebuilding global influence through soft power rather than be more assertive as the Pentagon/Washington tries to curb China’s rise.
The US should focus on consolidating and rebuilding global influence through soft power. Times have changed from the Cold War era when the US had influential allies that supported its global power and dominance. However, currently, assertiveness would not successfully curb China’s rise, especially since both Beijing and Moscow are increasingly exploiting their paramilitary and military influence to intimidate Washington’s allies. Beijing’s influence includes impeding Washington’s access to allies, which signals a decline in US dominance and power. The above is sustained by China’s warfighting capabilities. As such, as deLisle (2020, 174) reiterates, if Beijing-Washingtons relations assume a more adversarial approach, countermeasures, including political warfare, are likely to increase. This invites a possibility of losing the battle, especially if the US adopts an assertive approach because China is increasingly prosperous, with a higher GDP and increasing military balance in Asia, against the US, whose defense budget is cons...