STRATEGIC

Summary
xxxi
of ISIS, the migration crisis, Russia’s military involvement in Syria, and
rising instability across the Middle East in the wake of the failed “Arab
Spring” are the second- and third-order consequences of premature
U.S. disengagement from Iraq and Libya. In this view, only the United
States, with all its warts, has the resources, prestige, and expertise to
lead, and the United States is at its best when advancing and defending
a benign liberal international world. Failure to invest in global security
in this moment of turbulence and change will diminish U.S. power,
security, and prosperity—and no other power is likely to shape the
world to such benign ends.
“Agile America” would keep the United States engaged in the
world, but primarily for the purposes of advancing the economic wellbeing
of the United States and its friends. It accepts globalization as
inevitable and even desirable, and would use U.S. foreign policy and
economic statecraft to help make it work better for the American people.
Its goal is to manage change in such a way as to benefit all Americans.
In this view, it will be nearly impossible, and probably undesirable,
to try to limit U.S. exposure to an unstable world, as retreat would
diminish security as well as economic and political opportunities for
the United States. At the same time, the cost of remaining “the indispensable
nation” will be unaffordable. The United States would remain
engaged in the world, but with foreign policies prioritizing the economic
well-being of the United States and limiting what appear to be
expensive security commitments, particularly with partners able to do
much more on their own behalf. Like the first option, it would attempt
to set limits on U.S. global security obligations—but instead of curtailing
them, it would attempt to adapt them in ways that reflect the
nation’s changing geo-economic interests.
The report identifies the core beliefs and assumptions behind each
strategic concept, and interrelates broad policy objectives, degrees of
international activism, general budgetary implications, constraints,
and risks. The policies chosen to implement them can be fluid, often
dictated not by ideological or strategic considerations, but by fastchanging
circumstances, diplomatic necessities, financial constraints,
and above all, judgments about what is likely to work.