Research event

All-in or all-out: Why the United States is prone to pursue either maximalist or minimalist grand strategies

A talk by Paul van Hooft (European University Institute, Florence).

An initiative of the Centre for International Security Policy at the Hertie School of Governance.

The Centre for International Security Policy (CISP) at the Hertie School of Governance cordially invites to the inaugural session of the Security Policy Colloquium.

Paul van Hooft (Max Weber Fellow, European University Institute, Florence) will present a paper titled: All-in or all-out: Why the United States is prone to pursue either maximalist or minimalist grand strategies.

Abstract:
Critics of liberal hegemony argue that the US should use its command of the commons to pursue more limited grand strategies of restraint and offshore balancing. This paper argues that the inherent geographic security of the US makes it difficult to convince adversaries and allies of its willingness to spend blood and treasure, and a domestic audience of the need to do so. Policymakers will either oversell or fail to convince. Limited strategies are unavailable to the US, which is pulled towards either maximalist or minimalist strategies that escalate the likelihood of conflict or leave the US without influence in Europe and Asia.