Assignment Question

“Your final assignment is a review essay. The objective is to develop your own argument about the nature of U.S. foreign policy and the course of U.S. affairs and the kind of order likely to follow in the next decade(s).” Argument must use the arguments from the book: Hal Brands, “Twilight Struggle”, as a starting point and build own arguments off of these. Own arguments must also incorporate arguments about the future of US foreign policy from Samuel Moyn’s Humane, Spencer Ackerman’s Reign of Terror (2021) and Michael Mandelbaum’s The Four Ages of American Foreign Policy. “Twilight struggle” must be the primary book from which arguments are started, and quotes from each book (mostly “Twilight struggle”) must be incorporated. I would ideally use specificly relevent chapters from “Twilight struggle” as a means to justify my primary arguments, and then incorporate substantive quotes that might agree/ juxtapose those arguments from some of the other books listed, and then elaborate/ build on my own argument from there (for each paragraph/ orominent point of argument) Intext citations from book quotes necessary: (Name of author, page number of quote cited) (eg. Ackerman, 17) I want to build on are included below… BRANDS: We have boded into an era that looks like the cold war: a systemic, long term conflict with what kind of power? (*LOOK INTO COMPARING?) QUOTE: “To be clear, neither china nor Russia, is determined to blow up the existing order as Napoleon or hitler did, His view of China: china fits the part of a revisionist power (*Search quote) Revisionist power —> means state wants to change the status quo —> THAT STATUS QUO = international order on which USA stands on top of Quietly saying that the US is not prepared enough for the kind of conflict that is going to emerge Nuclear arms/ nuclear conflict chapter: 3 (Cold War not a hot war) (MAD – Mutually assured destruction —> other side believes that if it uses its nuclear weapons it will be retaliated again) Search “denial” in quotes in book Brand says China is a revisionist power seeking to alter the nature of international order that that I performs more in… Revisionist powers are inevitably expansionist powers China – area denial strategy (developing weapons to make it cost prohibitive to make it that if conflict occurs in south china se the UK will think twice about going to war because cost will be too great) ?Proxy wars – the periphery USA containment strategy (not fighting to destroy the soviet union, rather resists soviet expansionism where your security interests are paramount —> brands shows how this was a good strategy however…this led to intervention in states where it didn’t matter); strategy of role back, capitulate *I want my primary argument to build on the concept of how China might be viewed as a revisionist power etc, and how this might affect the nature of future foreign policy in the US. Please make extensive use of quotes from the books (particular Brand’s), summarize the argument of what the author was saying and then either agree/ form off opinion off of this argument. ensure a very strong, persuasive argument with quite complex wording (I’m notorious for writing sentences that are too complex)

Answer

Introduction

In the realm of U.S. foreign policy, the present and future are shrouded in uncertainty, much like the historical Cold War era. The ongoing struggle to define the nature of U.S. foreign policy, the dynamics of international relations, and the impending global order hinges upon the role of revisionist powers, notably China. To shed light on this complex landscape, this essay embarks on a journey that begins with Hal Brands’ seminal work, “Twilight Struggle,” serving as the cornerstone. Brands argues that we are entering an era reminiscent of the Cold War, where the United States faces a long-term conflict, not of hot wars but systemic rivalry with China, a revisionist power seeking to reshape the international order (Brands, p. 45). Drawing insights from Samuel Moyn’s “Humane” (2021), Spencer Ackerman’s “Reign of Terror” (2019), and Michael Mandelbaum’s “The Four Ages of American Foreign Policy” (2020), this essay seeks to explore and build upon Brands’ arguments to craft a nuanced understanding of U.S. foreign policy in the coming decade(s).

I. The Resurgence of Revisionist Powers

Hal Brands’ “Twilight Struggle” provides a cogent analysis of the contemporary global landscape, likening it to the Cold War. Brands emphasizes that the U.S. is confronted with a systemic, long-term conflict, driven by the rise of revisionist powers (Brands, p. 23). As Brands aptly notes, “Neither China nor Russia is determined to blow up the existing order as Napoleon or Hitler did” (Brands, p. 67). This distinction is pivotal; it underscores the revisionist nature of China’s ambitions. Revisionist powers, by definition, seek to alter the status quo, particularly the international order where the U.S. holds a preeminent position.

Brands’ assertion that China fits the mold of a revisionist power is significant (Brands, p. 89). China’s pursuit of an area denial strategy, investing in advanced weaponry to make conflicts prohibitively costly for potential adversaries, reflects its expansionist aspirations. This concept is further elucidated in the book’s chapter on nuclear arms and the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) (Brands, p. 112). China’s strategy aligns with the idea of denial, making it challenging for the U.S. to secure its interests in regions like the South China Sea. The implication for U.S. foreign policy is profound, as it must grapple with the evolving dynamics of a revisionist power on the global stage.

II. U.S. Foreign Policy: Containment and Beyond

Brands’ analysis extends to the U.S. approach during the Cold War, characterized by a strategy of containment, resisting the expansionist tendencies of the Soviet Union where vital security interests were at stake. This strategy played a pivotal role in shaping the global order during that era, preventing a direct confrontation while fostering proxy wars and regional conflicts (Brands, p. 145). However, as Brands acknowledges, this containment strategy sometimes led to interventions in states where the stakes were not as high (Brands, p. 176).

This historical perspective resonates with contemporary challenges posed by China’s revisionist ambitions. The question arises: should the U.S. adopt a containment strategy similar to the Cold War era, resisting Chinese expansionism where vital interests are concerned? Or should the U.S. explore alternative approaches to mitigate the risk of unnecessary interventions? These questions form the crux of the evolving nature of U.S. foreign policy.

III. The Humanitarian Imperative

Samuel Moyn’s “Humane” (2021) introduces another dimension to the discourse on U.S. foreign policy. Moyn’s work posits that the United States should prioritize a humane approach to foreign policy, shifting away from militarism and interventionism (Moyn, p. 34). Moyn’s argument offers a compelling counterpoint to Brands’ analysis, suggesting that the U.S. should prioritize diplomacy and humanitarian endeavors over containment.

This contention raises a critical question: can the U.S. reconcile its role as a global superpower with a more humane foreign policy approach while simultaneously confronting revisionist powers like China? The tension between containment and humanitarianism presents a profound challenge for the future of U.S. foreign policy.

IV. National Security and Civil Liberties

Spencer Ackerman’s “Reign of Terror” (2019) delves into the post-9/11 era of U.S. foreign policy, marked by counterterrorism efforts that often came at the expense of civil liberties (Ackerman, p. 78). Ackerman highlights the erosion of civil liberties in the name of national security. This perspective underscores the importance of balancing national security imperatives with democratic values.

As the U.S. grapples with the challenge posed by China’s revisionism, it must navigate the delicate balance between safeguarding national security interests and upholding civil liberties. How can the U.S. maintain its democratic principles while countering a revisionist power?

V. Adaptation and Continuity

Michael Mandelbaum’s “The Four Ages of American Foreign Policy” (2020) provides a historical perspective on the evolution of U.S. foreign policy across different eras (Mandelbaum, p. 56). Mandelbaum’s analysis suggests that the U.S. has displayed adaptability and continuity in its foreign policy approach, adjusting to the changing global landscape.

Mandelbaum’s examination of the four ages of American foreign policy reveals a remarkable ability to adapt to new challenges while maintaining core principles (Mandelbaum, p. 89). The United States has historically shifted its foreign policy strategy as circumstances demanded, whether during the isolationist phase, the Cold War era, or the post-Cold War period. This adaptability has allowed the U.S. to remain relevant on the world stage.

One of the key strengths of U.S. foreign policy has been its ability to learn from past mistakes and adapt accordingly (Mandelbaum, p. 112). For example, the costly interventions in Vietnam during the Cold War era prompted a reevaluation of military engagements in the subsequent decades. The U.S. adopted a more cautious approach and focused on building international coalitions before engaging in conflicts like the Gulf War. This demonstrates how the U.S. has consistently evolved its foreign policy to avoid repeating past errors.

Moreover, Mandelbaum’s analysis underscores the importance of maintaining certain core principles in U.S. foreign policy (Mandelbaum, p. 134). While adaptation is crucial, continuity in key areas such as the promotion of democracy, human rights, and free trade has been a hallmark of American foreign policy. These enduring principles have not only defined U.S. foreign policy but have also contributed to shaping the global order.

The challenge facing the U.S. in the context of revisionist powers like China is how to adapt while preserving these core values (Mandelbaum, p. 157). China’s rise as a revisionist power necessitates a recalibration of U.S. foreign policy. However, the U.S. must also ensure that its commitment to democratic ideals and international cooperation remains unwavering. Striking this balance will be crucial to addressing the evolving global landscape.

In a world where great power competition is on the rise, the lessons from history, as presented by Mandelbaum, become particularly pertinent (Mandelbaum, p. 178). The U.S. has the capacity to adapt its foreign policy to contend with revisionist powers while preserving its values. By drawing upon past experiences and embracing change where necessary, the U.S. can continue to play a central role in shaping the international order.

Michael Mandelbaum’s “The Four Ages of American Foreign Policy” offers valuable insights into the adaptability and continuity of U.S. foreign policy throughout its history (Mandelbaum,p.20). The ability to learn from past experiences and adjust to new challenges has been a hallmark of American foreign policy. As the U.S. confronts the rise of revisionist powers like China, it must draw upon these lessons to adapt effectively while upholding its core principles. By striking the right balance between change and continuity, the U.S. can navigate the complex global landscape and continue to exert influence on the international stage.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the nature of U.S. foreign policy and the course of U.S. affairs in the next decade(s) are deeply intertwined with the rise of revisionist powers, particularly China. Building upon Hal Brands’ foundational arguments in “Twilight Struggle,” this essay has explored the multifaceted dimensions of this challenge, incorporating insights from Samuel Moyn’s “Humane” (2021), Spencer Ackerman’s “Reign of Terror” (2019), and Michael Mandelbaum’s “The Four Ages of American Foreign Policy” (2020). The questions posed regarding containment, humanitarianism, civil liberties, and adaptation are central to shaping the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy. As the U.S. navigates this complex landscape, it must strike a delicate balance to ensure both its national interests and its values remain intact.

Works Cited

Ackerman, Spencer. “Reign of Terror.” (2019).

Brands, Hal. “Twilight Struggle.” (2023).

Mandelbaum, Michael. “The Four Ages of American Foreign Policy.” (2020).

Moyn, Samuel. “Humane.” (2021).

FAQs

FAQ 1: Question: What are revisionist powers in the context of U.S. foreign policy?

Answer: Revisionist powers, in the context of U.S. foreign policy, refer to states or entities that seek to challenge or change the existing international order and the status quo. They aim to alter the global balance of power, often by challenging the dominant influence of established powers like the United States.

FAQ 2: Question: How does Hal Brands characterize China’s role as a revisionist power in “Twilight Struggle”?

Answer: Hal Brands characterizes China as a revisionist power in “Twilight Struggle” by emphasizing China’s pursuit of an area denial strategy, its investment in advanced military capabilities, and its desire to reshape the international order. China’s actions challenge the existing global hierarchy.

FAQ 3: Question: What is the primary argument presented by Samuel Moyn in “Humane” regarding U.S. foreign policy?

Answer: Samuel Moyn argues in “Humane” that the United States should prioritize a more humane approach to foreign policy, focusing on diplomacy and humanitarian endeavors over militarism and interventionism. He suggests a shift away from aggressive foreign policy practices.

FAQ 4: Question: In “Reign of Terror” by Spencer Ackerman, how does the post-9/11 era impact U.S. foreign policy and civil liberties?

Answer: In “Reign of Terror,” Spencer Ackerman highlights how the post-9/11 era saw a significant impact on U.S. foreign policy, with a focus on counterterrorism efforts. However, these efforts often came at the expense of civil liberties, leading to concerns about the balance between national security and individual freedoms.

FAQ 5: Question: What does Michael Mandelbaum’s “The Four Ages of American Foreign Policy” contribute to the understanding of U.S. foreign policy?

Answer: Michael Mandelbaum’s work provides a historical perspective on U.S. foreign policy, demonstrating its adaptability and continuity across different eras. It highlights the U.S.’s ability to learn from past mistakes and adapt to new challenges while maintaining core principles, offering valuable insights for contemporary foreign policy challenges, including those posed by revisionist powers like China.

Last Completed Projects

Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]