Restrain is a policy taken by a government to inhibit or deter from through influence. Isolationism is a government’s policy of not being related to another country either economically or politically. The government can take up any of the above policies on different countries, regarding the matter which is being tabled by the government1.
Restrain policy can also be termed as offshore balancing. It is seen by experts as a multi-polar and not uni-polar strategy and is more apt in adapting to the rising of new powers and at the same time devolving Eurasia’s formidable powers the crucial responsibility of their own defense arrangements. Experts believe that America having wasted a lot of years in the cold war, should adapt new strategies which should encompass conceiving America’s security interests in a narrow mode, stingy use of military power and quietly pursuing its enemies persistently. They also feel that America should share its responsibilities and its costs equitably and patiently watch and also wait before taking any action. They feel that if the government could do that for the same years it had wasted on the cold war, the results would be far more desirable. The experts also believe that this strategy will receive salience in the domestic politics.
Isolationism stipulates that the most America’s important agenda is the security of its citizens. This can be further defined as the most important agenda for America is national defense. This can then be furthered to mean securing property and liberty and the extended homeland security. This means that America should do away with all other issues of world order maintenance and the promotion of world wide democracy. This American stand on world order and democracy on a world wide basis has been blamed for the generation of American enemies throughout the world and the reason why the security of the country is at time compromised by threats of terrorism and actual terrorism like the 9/11 incident2.
Comparison between restraint and selective engagement strategies
There is another strategy known as the selective engagement strategy. This is a hybrid strategy rooted to the goals of realist, security and prosperity and a contingent of other liberal goals like human rights, free markets and openness in the international level. Those for this strategy posit that in order to prevent materializing threats to the country is much preferable than to employ the off-shore balancing strategy3.
The selective engagement is much better considered to the restraint because the ultimate goal of the government of the United States is to defend the country against international attack, thus enhancing its citizens’ security. The best way to avoid any international attack is to be as friendly to all the nations as possible and the best strategy for this is the selective engagement strategy. In the near past, there has been a rising and steady animosity that has been directed to United States by various groups as well as countries in the world. If the country could have tried this strategy, this could not have happened in the first place.
It is important to note that even the restraint strategy can work to eliminate the increasing number of American enemies, but at this time the most adaptable and most workable solution is the selective engagement strategy that would eliminate the materialization of any threat to the country and importantly to the citizens of the United States of America.
Strategies of Preponderance
Strategies of preponderance are the strategies that a country may adopt to showcase their superiority over other countries and other governments. The United States government has exercised this strategy from the time they won the cold war and emerged as the world new superpower. They have influenced the world in their ideologies of maintaining world order and realizing a global democracy4.
Some of the strategies that the United States government employs are trade sanctions to countries that differ with their policies. These policies are mainly global order in which terrorism cannot be tolerated and hence for a country to comply with them, they need to stop supporting any terrorist outfits in their country and in any way are either motivation or material support. The countries must stop harboring any terrorists as they would jeopardize the security of many people, especially the American citizens, considering that America is the number one enemy of the terrorists5.
They may also enhance that strategy by way of waging war on countries that do not support their policies. This is another way of exercising superiority and has been used in various countries like Iraq and Afghanistan where they have enforced their world order system and accused these countries of not being democratic and harboring of terrorists. In relation to democracy in the world, they have waged war on the Iraq government and successfully ousted the Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein and have also put trade sanctions to countries like Zimbabwe where there is an outcry of dictatorship. Various leaders are opposed to this kind of strategy and they have argued that it has only helped in creating more enemies to the United States. This is also seen as another way of endangering the lives of the citizens of United States.
Bibliography
Brown, M. E., Americas Strategic Choices; Cambridge, MIT Press, 1997
Footnotes
- Brown, M. E., Americas Strategic Choices; Cambridge, MIT Press, 1997
- Brown, M. E., Americas Strategic Choices; Cambridge, MIT Press, 1997
- Ibid
- Brown, M. E., Americas Strategic Choices; Cambridge, MIT Press, 1997
- Brown, M. E., Americas Strategic Choices; Cambridge, MIT Press, 1997