USGS and Unilateralism

The readings this week all focused on the debate of United States Grand Strategy. Now more than ever, the grand strategy of the United States is critical in order for it to maintain its position as an unrivaled hegemon in the future. What makes the debate more heated today is that the United States hegemonic power position has never been seen before in history. The US out spends the next six powerful states combined in military and faces no real threat from any other state. The United States has been able to maintain the current status quo because it has historically been able to check its own power and has been seen as a “benevolent hegemon” (Kristol and Kagan, 2) with an emphasis on morality and protecting the autonomy of other states.
However, there have been new concerns about US grand strategy post 9/11 and the war in Iraq. One of the major concerns is whether a more unilateralist approach to international affairs is a wise one. Bush’s speech after the 9/11 attacks implied that the United States would fight against terrorism, regardless of if they had to do it alone. Critics to unilateralism argue that this approach may leave other states feeling threatened by US power and result in an increased effort to check US power. Other critics argue that a unilateral approach will hurt US aims in the long run because multilateral institutions are needed by hegemons to secure cooperation from other states. As the US leads a crusade against terrorism, cooperation and support from other powerful states would make this effort more successful.
I feel that increased unilateralism for the US does have its benefits; however, it would be unwise for the United States to completely alienate its commitments to international institutions. As NATO involvement in Kosovo proved, sometimes it is necessary to do things alone in order to get them right. Also, terrorist don’t play by the rules, so the US may have to bend some in order to defeat the enemy.
But if the United States abandons the same policies that help it maintain its continued hegemony, then other states are likely to react adversely. Soft balancing and anti-American tendencies in international institutions seem to be the most likely ways that other states would show their resentment to US unilateralism.