| ID | 175515 |
| Title Proper | Primacy and Punishment |
| Other Title Information | US Grand Strategy, Maritime Power, and Military Options to Manage Decline |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Montgomery, Evan Braden |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | Perhaps the most significant foreign policy decision facing the United States is whether to retain its global security commitments or retrench from key regions. Although primacists are optimistic that the United States will remain ahead of its rivals, restrainers are more pessimistic about its prospects. I argue instead that this debate overlooks the importance of geopolitical orientation. Maritime powers such as the United States are frequently in competition with multiple adversaries at once. This introduces an interdependent commitment problem that makes primacy difficult to sustain and dangerous to enforce, especially given the propensity to employ similar military approaches against different opponents. At the same time, maritime powers experiencing decline can respond in ways that fall short of retrenchment. This is mainly because their naval forces provide many options for upholding their obligations. Applied to the United States, these arguments suggest Washington might choose to diversify its defense strategy rather than abandon its commitments. In the Middle East, for example, it could rely on punishment via naval blockade rather than denial against Iran, not only because the former strategy would require fewer high-value military assets than the latter but also because it might allow the United States to avoid the types of clashes that would undermine its position relative to higher-priority threats. |
| `In' analytical Note | Security Studies Vol. 29, No.4; Aug-Sep 2020: p.769-796 |
| Journal Source | Security Studies Vol: 29 No 4 |
| Key Words | Maritime Power ; Military Options ; US Grand Strategy |