Soft Balancing against the United States

The George W. Bush administration's national security strategy, which asserts that the United States has the right to attack and conquer sovereign countries that pose no observable threat, and to do so without international support, is one of the most aggressively unilateral U.S. postures ever...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International security 2005-07, Vol.30 (1), p.7-45
Main Author: Pape, Robert A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aggression
Balance of Power
Balancing Acts
Defence policy
Defense Policy
Foreign policy
Hegemony
International Relations
International relations-US
Military policy
Military strategy
National Security
Preventive wars
Rogue states
Soft balancing
Strategic studies
Superpowers
U.S.A
Unilateralism
Unipolarity
United States of America
War
World wars
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The George W. Bush administration's national security strategy, which asserts that the United States has the right to attack and conquer sovereign countries that pose no observable threat, and to do so without international support, is one of the most aggressively unilateral U.S. postures ever taken. Recent international relations scholarship has wrongly promoted the view that the United States, as the leader of a unipolar system, can pursue such a policy without fear of serious opposition. The most consequential effect of the Bush strategy will be a fundamental transformation in how major states perceive the United States and how they react to future uses of U.S. power. Major powers are already engaging in the early stages of balancing behavior against the United States, by adopting "soft-balancing" measures that do not directly challenge U.S. military preponderance but use international institutions, economic state-craft, and diplomatic arrangements to delay, frustrate, and undermine U.S. policies. If the Bush administration continues to pursue aggressive unilateral military policies, increased soft balancing could establish the basis for hard balancing against the United States. To avoid this outcome, the United States should renounce the systematic use of preventive war, as well as other aggressive unilateral military policies, and return to its traditional policy governing the use of force-a case-by-case calculation of costs and benefits.
ISSN:0162-2889
1531-4804
DOI:10.1162/0162288054894607