Albritton Center for Grand Strategy directors and co-authors examine the nuanced visions of restraint
Albritton Center for Grand Strategy Co-Directors John Schuessler and Jasen Castillo recently co-authored a ground-breaking article in International Security, widely regarded as the flagship journal in the field. The journal addresses a range of topics including war and peace, humanitarian issues, environmental dimensions of security and emerging technologies. Published by MIT Press, International Security has set the agenda for scholarship on international security affairs and the U.S. national security debate for more than four decades and is the #2 journal in International Relations.
“International Security is rare among academic journals because it is read by both scholars and policymakers,” Castillo said.
The article, co-authored with Miranda Priebe, director of the Center for Analysis of U.S. Grand Strategy and a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, and Bryan Rooney, a political scientist at RAND, delves into the nuanced visions of restraint held by different groups within the grand strategy debate.
In their research, Schuessler, Castillo, Priebe, and Rooney highlight the dichotomy in the grand strategy debate, which has polarized into two primary schools of thought: deep engagement and restraint. Deep engagement advocates for sustained U.S. leadership in East Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. Conversely, restrainers argue that the U.S. should act as a last-resort security provider for these regions. Although restraint has historically been a minority view, it has gained traction among scholars in recent years.
The article identifies three distinct visions of restraint: realists, who believe deep engagement is counterproductive and aim to prevent the emergence of regional hegemons without provoking major power conflicts; conservatives, who seek to preserve their conception of the American way of life; and progressives, who prioritize addressing inequality and injustice both domestically and internationally. These diverse perspectives often complicate efforts to unify the restraint camp.
“At the Albritton Center for Grand Strategy our mission is to foment debate on the proper course for American grand strategy,” Schuessler said, “In order to do that effectively, we need to understand the positions in that debate and their ideological roots. That is what we set out to do for the ‘restraint’ position.”
You can read the full article published in International Security here.
