Abstract
The United States is a deeply divided society on many political topics, but not on its foreign policy. There is a consensus view among the leaders of both main political parties supported by most former and current officials, senior military, and the public that the United States should remain the world’s most powerful nation and its continuing security depends upon the United States being the sole manager of global security. This stance, often labelled Primacy, stems from the lessons America’s leaders drew from the Second World War, was seemingly confirmed in the peaceful end to the Cold War, and has continued essentially unchallenged into the 21st Century because it has been cheap to maintain despite expectations to the contrary.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For a definition of Primacy as a grand national strategy for the United States and alternative strategies see Brown, Michael E., Cote Jr., Owen R., Lynn-Jones, Sean M., Miller, Steven E. (Eds.) (2000). America’s Strategic Choices, Revised Edition. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
- 2.
Of course, this does not mean it wins all of its wars.
- 3.
Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan and thinking about the Philippines.
- 4.
It is appropriate and only right at this point to thank Ben Friedman for his contribution. Ben’s thinking had a big influence on this chapter as well as the joint chapter cited here.
- 5.
With ratchet jumps up after Sputnik and in the Reagan years.
- 6.
That is the view of one of Primacy’s strongest advocates. See Cohen, Eliot A. (2016). The Big Stick: The Limits of Soft Power & the Necessity of Military Force. New York: Basic Books.
References
Harrison T (2017) US defense spending. Center for Strategic and International Studies
Peter G, Peterson Foundation (2017) The United States spends more on defence than the next eight countries combined. http://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/0053_defense-comparison-full.gif. Accessed 13 Jan 2018
Abrams E (2017) Trump the traditionalist: a surprisingly standard foreign policy. Foreign Aff July/August 2017:10–16
Lake E (2016) Obama’s foreign policy guru is the ‘Blob’ he hates. Bloomberg, 6 May 2017. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-06/obama-s-foreign-policy-guru-is-the-blob-he-hates. Accessed 13 Jan 2018
Rachman G (2017) How the Washington blob swallowed Donald Trump. Financial Times, 10 Apr 2017. https://www.ft.com/article-US-foreign-policy-gideon-rachman. Accessed 13 Jan 2018
Carleton G (2017) Russia: the story of war. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Friedberg AL (2000) In the shadow of the garrison state: America’s anti-statism and its cold war grand strategy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Gaddis John Lewis (2005) Strategies of containment: a critical appraisal of postwar American National Security Policy. Oxford University Press, New York
Gholz E, Sapolsky HM (1999/2000) Restructuring the U.S. defence industry. Int Secur 24(3):5–51
Gholz E, Sapolsky HM (Forthcoming) Many lines of defense: the political economy of defense acquisition
Sapolsky HM, Shapiro J (1996) Casualties, technology, and America’s future wars. Parameters 26(2):119–127
Cohen EA (1994) The mystique of U.S. air power. Foreign Aff 73(1):109–124
Pape RA (1996) Bombing to win: airpower and coercion in war. Cornell University Press, Ithica, NY
Lambeth BS (2000) The transformation of American air power. Cornell University Press, Ithica, NY
Freedman L (2017) The future of war: a history. Public Affairs, Washington, DC
Sokolski HD (ed) (2016) Should we let the bomb spread?. Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, Arlington, VA
Steinbock D (2014) The challenges for america’s defence innovation. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Washington, DC
Friedman BH, Sapolsky HM (forthcoming 2018). Unrestrained: the politics of America’s primacist foreign policy. In: Friedman BH, Thrall Trevor (eds) US grand strategy in the 21st century: the case for restraint. London: Routledge. Data from Office of Managegement and Budget (2017) Historical tables: table 8.4. WhiteHouse.gov. https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/. Accessed 1 Feb 2018. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (2017) National health expenditure data: historical. CMS.gov. https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nationalhealthaccountshistorical.html/. Accessed 1 Feb 2018
Friedman BH, Sapolsky HM (forthcoming 2018) Unrestrained: the politics of America’s primacist foreign policy. In: Friedman BH, Thrall T (eds) US grand strategy in the 21st century: the case for restraint. London: Routledge
Kesling B (2017) Army set to broaden battlefield definition. Wall Street J, 9 Oct 2017:A-3
Office of Management and Budget (2016) Budget of the US government: fiscal year 2017. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
YouthXChange (2006) Military spending on R&D. http://www.youthxchange.net/main/ff4b265_military-spending-d.asp. Accessed 13 Jan 2018
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sapolsky, H.M. (2018). Hoping Primacy Stays Cheap: America’s Grand Strategy. In: Leuprecht, C., Sokolsky, J., Hughes, T. (eds) North American Strategic Defense in the 21st Century:. Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90978-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90978-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90977-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90978-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)