What do you think?
Rate this book
America Abroad: Why the Sole Superpower Should Not Pull Back from the World
A decade and a half of exhausting wars, punishing economic setbacks, and fast-rising rivals has called into question America's fundamental position and purpose in world politics. Will the US continue to be the only superpower in the international system? Should it continue advancing the world-shaping grand strategy it has followed since the Cold War? Or should it focus on internal problems? America Abroad takes stock of these debates and provides a powerful defense of American globalism. Since the end of World War Two, world politics has been shaped by two America's position as the most powerful state, and its strategic choice to be deeply engaged in the world. But if America disengages from the world and reduces its footprint overseas, core US security and economic interests would be jeopardized. While America should remain globally engaged, it has to focus primarily on its core interests or run the risk of overextension. A bracing rejoinder to the critics of American globalism-a more potent force than ever in the Trump era-America Abroad is a powerful reminder that a robust American presence is crucial for maintaining world order.
284 pages, Kindle Edition
First published August 1, 2016
9 people are currently reading
139 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
January 15, 2021
Though not amazing, this book does a good job in laying out why, in the view of the authors, the US is, and should continue to be, the world’s only globally-engaged superpower.
Written in 2015, the authors acknowledge the need to write the book in light of the increasing calls, by academics, politicians and segments of the public, for the US to pull back from its interventionist foreign policy. The authors also acknowledge the views that the US is no longer, or won’t be for much longer, the world’s only superpower, citing the meteoric rise of China.
To tackle the first point, the authors highlight the extent to which Iraq and Afghanistan were radical outliers in the US’s style of a deeply engaged, but far less interventionist, foreign policy. They then go on to argue the benefits, economic and geo-political, for the US’s policy of deep engagement, not just for the US but, by and large, for the world. Similarly, they outline their criticisms for those advocating for the US to pull back, exposing what they see as insufficient budgetary savings and an increase in the potential for having to re-engage in a hurry at the first sing of instability.
As to the status of China, the authors spent a significant amount of space to highlight the military and technological shortcomings that they see as keeping China from superpower status, though they do acknowledge the potential for it to emerge as one over several decades. Unfortunately, the authors brush aside, too quickly in my opinion, the concern for the rising economic importance of China. This was one of the most disappointing aspects of the book. It seemed like huge missed opportunity to not recognize that China might become a global superpower on the strength of its economy rather than on its military or to at least argue why this is unlikely to be the case.
Nonetheless, the book was an interesting exploration of the value of the US’s international commitments as well as the challenges needed to be overcome for any change in that policy to be in anyone’s benefit.
Written in 2015, the authors acknowledge the need to write the book in light of the increasing calls, by academics, politicians and segments of the public, for the US to pull back from its interventionist foreign policy. The authors also acknowledge the views that the US is no longer, or won’t be for much longer, the world’s only superpower, citing the meteoric rise of China.
To tackle the first point, the authors highlight the extent to which Iraq and Afghanistan were radical outliers in the US’s style of a deeply engaged, but far less interventionist, foreign policy. They then go on to argue the benefits, economic and geo-political, for the US’s policy of deep engagement, not just for the US but, by and large, for the world. Similarly, they outline their criticisms for those advocating for the US to pull back, exposing what they see as insufficient budgetary savings and an increase in the potential for having to re-engage in a hurry at the first sing of instability.
As to the status of China, the authors spent a significant amount of space to highlight the military and technological shortcomings that they see as keeping China from superpower status, though they do acknowledge the potential for it to emerge as one over several decades. Unfortunately, the authors brush aside, too quickly in my opinion, the concern for the rising economic importance of China. This was one of the most disappointing aspects of the book. It seemed like huge missed opportunity to not recognize that China might become a global superpower on the strength of its economy rather than on its military or to at least argue why this is unlikely to be the case.
Nonetheless, the book was an interesting exploration of the value of the US’s international commitments as well as the challenges needed to be overcome for any change in that policy to be in anyone’s benefit.
March 15, 2019
The knowledge is well researched and for exhaustive of the possibilities that could happen or has already taken place. The authors did wrote a very informative book, even if it was rather formal to read. My biggest issue with this book was that often times they would present an argument, explain it, defend it with both historical and theoretical research, but then they would immediately have 8 or so pages disproving the theory, so often times it was lacking on where the authors stood on the issue, or if the original theory was even still relevant. I appreciate the presentation from both sides of the argument, however it could have been done in a less confusing way.
April 12, 2022
A concise and methodical case for deep engagement. After reading this, I am thoroughly convinced that the US will hold its unipolar position in the medium-long term, the benefits of deep engagement outweigh the harms, and that retrenchment would harm the US-lead liberal order. This book serves as a classic introduction to international relations.
Read
October 20, 2016The new book from Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth might be unsettling to readers accustomed to encountering the hawks who typically populate the media. Unlike them, the authors of America Abroad admit that the United States has made mistakes abroad, they reckon with the reality of failed policies, and they consider other countries’ perspectives. Try to imagine William Kristol or Fred Barnes advocating an assertive American foreign policy but conceding that “the United States has at least its fair share of flaws, and, given its outsized role in the world, those flaws can produce negative ramifications; the aftermath of the 2003 invasion is arguably the most dramatic recent example but there are obviously many others.”
America Abroad’s arguments are strengthened considerably by its nuance and fairness. Indeed, even those of us who favor a foreign policy guided by more restraint may admit that Brooks and Wohlforth have produced perhaps the most convincing defense of American power since the Cold War ceased. It at least ranks with Joseph Nye’s Bound to Lead and Zbigniew Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard in that regard. Those who have followed the authors’ careers will not be surprised at the quality of this work. Political scientists at Dartmouth, they are best known for a series of journal articles arguing that American preeminence is resilient and a positive force for the U.S. and the world.
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
America Abroad’s arguments are strengthened considerably by its nuance and fairness. Indeed, even those of us who favor a foreign policy guided by more restraint may admit that Brooks and Wohlforth have produced perhaps the most convincing defense of American power since the Cold War ceased. It at least ranks with Joseph Nye’s Bound to Lead and Zbigniew Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard in that regard. Those who have followed the authors’ careers will not be surprised at the quality of this work. Political scientists at Dartmouth, they are best known for a series of journal articles arguing that American preeminence is resilient and a positive force for the U.S. and the world.
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
June 29, 2022
Really good book, but built on foundation that US is dominant world power (published in ‘16 before Trump was elected and too soon to Xi’s ascent in China and Russia’s annexation of Crimea to put those events in perspective). Author had been writing about benefits of unipolarity for 20 years prior in articles and advocating for it for at least 3-5 amidst signs of domestic debate and popular unhappiness withUS foreign policy. The US position is much more frequently debated now but if US is dominant power, this takes on what to do with it
January 4, 2017
A very relevant and interesting book. I think it earns five stars with some personal wrights. It is evident that this is a throughly researched book. I enjoyed the many facts and figures. However, I found myself lost at times trying to fully grasp the arguments presented. No doubt that the authors each have a great sense of style, and indeed it does not fail throughout the book, but, I felt confused and needed to reread some sections.
Want to read
June 8, 2016Discussed in Vox
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews