Foreign-Policy Restraint Now Inevitable

For the past few years, foreign-policy debates have been framed as if there were a person, or a group of people, who faced a neat decision between maintaining American primacy on the world stage and some form of retrenchment and restraint.

I would know, because I’ve been on the “restraint” side of those debates. Should we enforce Obama’s red lines and change the regime in Syria? Or is that another costly nation-building exercise that will enflame extremism and worsen a refugee crisis for Europe? Should America tear up its agreements and stay in Afghanistan? Or should we honor them and end the longest war in American history? Should we aid Ukraine against Russia’s invasion as if it were a de facto member of NATO? Or should we acknowledge that Ukraine is of peripheral interest to us, and that Russia will make greater sacrifices and take bigger risks to effect its preferred outcomes there?

About the Author

Michael Brendan Dougherty

Michael Brendan Dougherty is a senior writer at National Review Online.

Featured Tags

For the past few years, foreign-policy debates have been framed as if there were a person, or a group of people, who faced a neat decision between maintaining American primacy on the world stage and some form of retrenchment and restraint.

I would know, because I’ve been on the “restraint” side of those debates. Should we enforce Obama’s red lines and change the regime in Syria? Or is that another costly nation-building exercise that will enflame extremism and worsen a refugee crisis for Europe? Should America tear up its agreements and stay in Afghanistan? Or should we honor them and end the longest war in American history? Should we aid Ukraine against Russia’s invasion as if it were a de facto member of NATO? Or should we acknowledge that Ukraine is of peripheral interest to us, and that Russia will make greater sacrifices and take bigger risks to effect its preferred outcomes there?