Offshore balancing

Abstract: I T h e Soviet Union's collapse transformed the international system dramatically, but there has been no corresponding change in U.S. grand strategy. In terms of ambitions, interests, and alliances, the United States is following the same grand strategy it pursued from 1945 until 1991: that of preponderance.' Whether this strategy will serve U.S. interests in the early twenty-first century is problematic. Hence, in this article my purpose is to stimulate a more searching debate about future U.S. grand strategic options.2 To accomplish this, I compare the strategy of preponderance to a proposed alternative grand strategy: offshore balancing.

Abstract: Despite their disagreements, proponents of deep engagement and offshore balancing share an optimistic but unrealistic assessment of U.S. military power. In particular, both sides in the debate over U.S. grand strategy underestimate the potential consequences of China's military modernization. China's antiaccess/area denial strategy and conventional precision-strike capabilities are already undermining the United States’ ability to prevent local conflicts, protect longtime allies, and preserve freedom of the commons in East Asia. Whether the United States intends to uphold the status quo when threats emerge or adopt a wait-and-see approach to regional conflicts, it will need to adapt its military for power projection operations in much less permissive environments than it has become accustomed to during the unipolar era. These adaptations include developing air and undersea platforms that can survive inside denial zones, forward bases that are better able to withstand attacks, and satellite and cyberspace ...

Abstract: For the first time in recent memory, large numbers of Americans are openly questioning their country’s grand strategy. Such a distaste should come as no surprise, given its abysmal record over the past quarter century. By pursuing a strategy of «offshore balancing», Washington would forgo ambitious efforts to remake other societies and concentrate on what really matters: pre serving U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere and countering potential hegemons in Europe, Northeast Asia, and the Persian Gulf. Rather, by husbanding U.S. strength, offshore balancing would preserve U.S. primacy far into the future and safeguard liberty at home.

Abstract: The “Through the Looking Glass” contributors reveal that U.S. hegemony is a double‐edged sword. As the debate about future U.S. grand strategy unfolds after September 11, offshore balancing should become the successor strategy to primacy.