Skip to main content

The US foreign policy establishment and grand strategy: how American elites obstruct strategic adjustment

Abstract

In this article, I demonstrate that there are compelling reasons why the USA should reconsider its current grand strategy—variously described as primacy or deep engagement—and, instead, adopt a less activist strategy such as offshore balancing, or restraint. The most salient reason for the USA to make a change of direction is that its current strategy has set the USA on a collision course with China. Nevertheless, the American foreign policy establishment is resistant to strategic adjustment. In this article, I offer a two-pronged explanation for this resistance. First, the American foreign policy establishment imposes a broadly uniform world view on those who comprise it. In this sense, the foreign policy establishment’s very existence is a barrier to strategic adjustment. Second, the foreign policy establishment’s preferences invariably prevail because it exercises discourse dominance, which allows it to frame issues, and to set the bounds of discussion by signaling to a wider audience what policy positions are legitimate, and, perhaps even more important, which are not. In this article, I begin by discussing how the American foreign policy establishment’s members are recruited, and focus on its links to America’s corporate and financial elite. Then, I lay out the key elements of the foreign policy establishment’s world views. I show how the foreign policy establishment uses discourse dominance to ensure that US grand strategy reflects its core beliefs about America’s international political role. Finally, I demonstrate that with respect to China, the foreign policy establishment’s world view, and the discursive practices it employs, make it unlikely that the USA will be able peacefully to accommodate China’s rise.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Abelson, D. 2006. A capitol idea: Think tanks and U.S. foreign policy. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, S.G., Ikenberry, G.J., and Wohlforth, W.C. 2012/2013. Don’t come home, America: The case against retrenchment. International Security 37(3): 7–51.

  • Bush, G.W. 2006. State of the Union. Address before a joint session of congress. Washington D.C.

  • Campbell, D. 1993. Writing security: United States foreign policy and the politics of identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clinton, H. 2011. America’s Pacific century. Foreign Policy 189 (1): 56–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desch, M.C. 2007/2008. America’s liberal illiberalism: The ideological origins of overreaction in U.S. Foreign Policy. International Security 32(3): 7–43.

  • Devine, R. 1967. Second chance: The triumph of internationalism in America during World War II. New York: Atheneum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domhoff, G.W. 2014. Who rules America? The Triumph of the corporate rich. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, T. 1984. From Normalcy to New Deal: Industrial structure, party competition, and American public policy in the Great Depression. International Organization 38 (1): 41–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fray, K. 2014. China’s Great Leap Forward: Overtaking the U.S. as the World’s Biggest Economy. Financial Times, online publication 8 October, http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2014/10/08/chinas-leap-forward-overtaking-theus-as-worlds-biggest-economy/. Accessed 12 May 2017.

  • Friedberg, A. 2011. A contest for supremacy: China, America, and the struggle for mastery in Asia. New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaddis, J.L. 1993. The tragedy of cold war history. Diplomatic History 17 (1): 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartz, L. 1955. The liberal tradition in America. San Diego, CA: Harcourt, Brace, and World.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G. 1973. The establishment. Foregin Policy 10: 3–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, M. 1998. Cross of Iron: Harry S. Truman and the Origins of the National Security State, 1945–1954. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, M. 1987. Ideology and U.S. foreign policy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikenberry, G.J. 2000. After victory: Institutions, strategic restraint and the rebuilding of order after major wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikenberry, G.J. 2011. Liberal leviathan; the origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaacson, W., and E. Thomas. 1986. The wise men: Six friends and the world they made. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, L.R., and B.I. Page. 2005. Who influences U.S. foreign policy? American Political Science Review 99 (1): 107–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I.L. 1972. Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I.L. 1982. Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jervis, R. 1976. Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jervis, R. 1991. Domino beliefs and strategic behavior. In Dominoes and bandwagons: Strategic beliefs and great power competition in the Eurasian rimland, ed. R. Jervis and J. Snyder, 20–50. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, P.M. 1987. The rise and fall of the great powers: Economic change and military conflict from 1500 to 2000. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khong, Y.F. 1992. Analogies at war: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam decisions of 1965. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layne, C. 1997. From preponderance to offshore balancing. International Security 22 (1): 86–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layne, C. 2006. The peace of illusions: American grand strategy from 1940 to the present. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layne, C. 2008. China’s challenge to U.S. hegemony. Current History 107 (705): 13–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leffler, M. 1984. The American conception of national security and the beginnings of the cold war, 1945–1948. American Historical Review 89 (2): 346–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leffler, M. 1992. A preponderance of power: National security, the truman administration, and the cold war. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbaum, M. 2010. The frugal superpower: America’s global leadership in a cash-strapped era. New York: PublicAffairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, E.R. 1973. “Lessons” of the Past: The use and abuse of history in American foreign policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, E.R., and R.E. Neustadt. 1986. Thinking in time: The uses of history by decision makers. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDougall, W.A. 1997. Promised land, crusader state: The American encounter with the world since 1776. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J.J. 2001. The tragedy of great power politics. New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J.J. 2006. China’s unpeaceful rise. Current History 690: 160–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, J.H. 2013. The discourse trap and the military: From the war on terror to the surge. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C.W. 2000. The power elite. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, A., and A. Scobell. 2012. How China sees America: The sum of Beijing’s fears. Foreign Affairs 91 (5): 32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obama, B. 2010. National security strategy 2010. Washington D.C: The White House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obama, B. 2015. State of the Union. Address before a Joint Session of Congress. Washington D.C., 20 January.

  • Parmar, I. 2012. Foundations of the twentieth century: The Ford, carnegie, and rockefeller foundations and the rise of American power. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, R.A. 1985. Economic security and the origins of the cold war, 1945–1950. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posen, B.R. 2014. Restraint: A new foundation for U.S. grand strategy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, D. 2005. In command of history: Churchill fighting and writing the second world war. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulzinger, R. 1984. The wise men of foreign affairs: The history of the council on foreign relations. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherry, M. 1995. In the shadow of war: The United States since the 1930s. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slater, J. 1993/1994. The domino theory and international politics: The case of Vietnam. Security Studies 3 (2): 186–224.

  • Snyder, J. 1991. Myths of empire: Domestic politics and international ambition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. 2002. Globalization and its discontents. New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. 2013. The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers our future. New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J.A. 1992. The exaggeration of American vulnerability: The anatomy of a tradition. Diplomatic History 16 (1): 23–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trachtenberg, M. (ed.). 2003. Between empire and alliance: America and Europe during the cold war. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Apeldoorn, B., and N. De Graaf. 2012. The limits of open door imperialism and the U.S. state-capital nexus. Globalizations 9 (4): 593–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Apeldoorn, B., and N. De Graaf. 2014. Corporate elite networks and US grand strategy from Clinton to Obama. European Journal of International Relations 20 (1): 29–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, W.A. 1962. The tragedy of American diplomacy. New York: Delta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohlforth, W.C. 2009. Unipolarity, status competition, and great power war. World Politics 61 (1): 28–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Layne.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Layne, C. The US foreign policy establishment and grand strategy: how American elites obstruct strategic adjustment. Int Polit 54, 260–275 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-017-0033-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-017-0033-0

Keywords

  • American foreign policy establishment
  • Elites
  • The power elite
  • Sino-American relations
  • American grand strategy
  • Foreign policy discourses