American Grand Strategy and the Liberal Order
Continuity, Change, and Options for the Future
Expert InsightsPublished Oct 19, 2016
Continuity, Change, and Options for the Future
Expert InsightsPublished Oct 19, 2016
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.
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 publication is part of the RAND expert insights series. The expert insights series presents perspectives on timely policy issues.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND 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.