Grand Strategy After Iraq: Restraint and Its Critics.

Disastrous wars tend to generate reluctance to intervene abroad. After the war in Iraq, strategic restraint may prove to be more politically palatable than ever before. Pundits and analysts of various stripes will rail against our reluctance to intervene abroad, as if it guaranteed instability, famines, Hitlers and genocides. This paper explores the justification for the most common objections to a post-Iraq strategic alteration. None is particularly well grounded. The strategic interest of the United States would be better served by a more patient, more restrained, less expensive approach to foreign policy. Like an alcoholic, sometimes a nation must hit rock bottom before it sees the need to make drastic changes. Iraq should be our rock bottom. If the war leads the United States to return to its traditional, restrained grand strategy, then perhaps the whole experience will not have been in vain. At this point, it may be the best outcome for which one can hope. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]