Since the end of World War II, the United States has pursued its global interests through a policy of consistent but evolving support for a liberal international order. In recent years, however, international challenges — such as the rise of new powers, climate change, and failed states — have led to an intensified debate about the future of the U.S. relationship with that order. To inform this debate, this Perspective identifies areas of continuity and change in the historical U.S. approach to international order. It then outlines four alternative strategies that the United States might pursue vis-à-vis the liberal order in the future and proposes criteria for choosing among these options.
Table of Contents
The Liberal Order and Postwar American Grand Strategy
Examining Individual Administrations
American Strategy and the Future of the Liberal Order
Grand Strategy and the Liberal Order in the Years Ahead
This research was conducted within the International Security and Defense Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Perspective series. RAND Perspectives present expert insights on timely policy issues. All RAND Perspectives undergo peer review to ensure high standards for quality and objectivity.
Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.