Hegemony and Grand Strategy:

- Not just power but it is also grand strategy, how the US applies its power and where
o Grand strategy – the purposeful employment of all power for security capability
 Resources
 Aims
o Post WWI
 Our aims internationally were narrow
 We only had one goal – global market
 The US was more “powerful” at the time but no one would call the US a
hegemon because the scope of our aims were low
o Post WWII
 The US expanded its goal
 Realism – There are a variety of states and those states be have under self
interest that is defined by power. It is impossible to predict what other
countries will do.
• Countries will work to make sure there isn’t the ris of another
hegemon
 Post WWII the US was working to prevent Germany or Japan from
becoming regional hegemons
• This made the US a hegemon with the majority of the GDP in the
US’s playing field
 The US didn’t go home after WWII
• We committed to containment
o Preventing communism
• The Soviet Union wasn’t hostile but harmful
o We worked to reduce the ability for the soviet union to
punch
o The US feared that Europe and Japan so there wouldn’t be
communism in these countries
o This obligated the US to fighting problem
o The goal was to prevent other countries from getting more
forces than us
o The foundation of hegemony
 The alliances that the US built
 America has 25% of the global GDP but we are allies with big parts of the
GDP
• Europe is about a quarter
• Japan is about 7%
• This makes us more than half of the GDP
• The countries against us make us have a higher overall GDP
 We also have the best military
• We have carriers
• Bases to project power
  America has declined at a faster rate over the year because the rate in
which China is growing is faster than the rate in which America is
growing
o What is America’s grand strategy?
 To prevent another country from taking over us
 Deterrence
 Democracy promotion
 Spread of free market
 Prevention of proliferation
 Prevention of terrorism
• Prevent the loss of a rival
 Gaining resources for the global economy
 All in all make the world as we want it
 Large goals that are hard to get:
• Oil and democratization conflict with terror
• We need an army that can stretch across the world
• It requires that we have to protect our allies
o Alternatives to primacy
 Selective engagement
• Makes a decision between missions that are essential and missions
that are important
• Prevent the rise of a hostile power with sufficient abilities to
challenge the US
• What we shouldn’t do
o Don’t do random peace keeping missions
o Democratization of Iraq
o Preventing North Korea
 Offshore Balancing
• No more alliances and no more troops abroad
• If a war happens the US stays out unless the side we are on is
getting butt raped
• We don’t need to be in the country to prevent it
 Isolationism
• What happens in the rest of the world doesn’t matter
o Strengths and weaknesses of each strategy
 Primacy
• Strengths
o We have a strong military
o No oppositions
o Stability
o Prevention of most treats
o Preventing our allies from having a strong military makes
everything more stable
 o If the US were to withdraw then these countries would
focus on armament and then there would be security
dilemma and there would be no stability
 There would be no way to prevent a fallout
• Weaknesses
o Overstretch
 Get us into wars we cant handle and it weakens the
quality of our deterrent
 Leads to a resource problem
o Primacy breeds resentment
 If countries resent US more primacy they will
balance us
 Terrorists form because of the resentment
o Entanglement
 We are committed to defend Taiwan but if China
attacks Taiwan then we are stuck in that battle
o Selective Engagement
 Strengths
• Maintains our alliances
• Prevents conflicts
 Weaknesses
• Doesn’t solve anything big
• Doesn’t get anything cool
o Offshore Balancing
 Strengths
• Not the same amount of control you have in that region
• Reduces the intensity of conflicts
• Solves overstretch
• Solves the budget
• Solves resentment
 Weaknesses
• Results in weakening of the ability to deter
• Breeds resentment from allies
• Harder to deter any threats
• Less control over global markets
• Proliferation
o If the US withdrew its commitments they would develop
their own nukes because they wouldn’t have ours anymore
• Military building
o Countries will build up their militaries
o Isolationism
 Dumbbbbbb
- Debating Hegemony
o You cannot change our entire strategy
 The US may leave Japan but there would still be a security promise
 Hegemony bad isn’t a strat that can win because you can’t get offshore
balancing
 If the US has a foreign policy strategy it should be stronger rather than
weaker
o What effects heg and what is key to the effectiveness of US strategy?
 Power
• The capabilities of the US
• The strength of the military
• The economy
 Credibility
• Deterrence
o We need to mean it that we will lashout if a country were to
attack
• Allies
o If the US loses the credibility that we will protect them heg
gets tanked
o How does the plan kill heg
 The plan undermines the amount of power we have in east Asia
 Our allies don’t have credibility that we will help them
 Decreasing America’s military presence abroad
o How the debate will go down
 Is heg high and sustainable?
• If heg is unsustainable then we are moving towards a strategy of
offshore balancing
• The rise of the rest v. too far ahead
o US isn’t declining but now other countries our raising up
o The other side of the arugment is that even though these
countries are rising the US is too far ahead
• Deficit v. Structural Balance
o Deficit is about the US
 Deficit is increasing – multiple reasons
o Structural competitors like China will stop growing
 Makes US heg more sustainable
• Bandwagoning
o Does American power cause other countries to follow us?
• Competitivness and technology
o Will the US be able to maintain technological
competitiveness
o Can the US maintain dominance in the military
 Should allies be weak or strong?
• Is the world a safer place with our allies being strong or them
being weak and we just protect them?
 • Questions to take into account:
o Is Japan and China strong enough to check China
o Does it solve the security dilemma or does it just make it
worse?
o Is proliferation among our allies good or bad?
 Is US presence key to global stability
• Reasons for no war
o There is very good defnse the war in east Asia wont occur
o China cant take over South Korea in days
o Economic interdependence
o These countries trade with each other
o Deterance checks war
• There is also many reason that war can occur
o South China sea
o Racism
o China-Taiwan war
o Security dilemma
• There will also be arguments that:
o Heg isn’t key to prevent the power wars
• Same arguments above apply to Europe
 Entanglment v. Deterance
• Does foreign presenece deter wars?
• Are our security garuntees credible
o Means heg is safe
o If they are credible no entanglement if they are not credible
that means entablment
 Escalation
• Do wars escalate without the US or is draw in inevitable?
o The US might get drawn into these wars because China will
want to get imperialist or will the US not be drawn in
- Problems with reading heg bad this year
o Doesn’t assume a change in the grand strategy