The Middle Road: Why the United States Needs a Dynamic Approach to Its Foreign Policy

Congress passed multiple Neutrality Acts in an effort to prevent the United States from being drawn into a second international conflict in less than three decades, but it wasn’t until 1941 that Roosevelt and Congress enacted the Lend-Lease program, arguably the most overt internationalist policy of his Presidency up until that point.

As with many examinations of foreign policy approaches, there is a great deal of nuance in both of these case studies. Neither Wilson nor Roosevelt were isolationists or interventionists in the most extreme meaning of the terms. Under Wilson, the United States supplied the British, French, and Italians with food, munitions, and various other materials prior to entering the war in 1917. And Roosevelt displayed selective approaches to U.S. foreign policy, advocating for greater U.S. involvement in Europe while actively working to decrease U.S. presence in Latin America. Both examples represent the varying degrees of isolationism and interventionism that have been emblematic of U.S. foreign policy throughout the years. And these lessons shouldn’t be lost as the world moves into 2025 and beyond. A dynamic foreign policy approach—one tailored to support varying degrees of U.S. foreign policy objectives across the globe—should be the way ahead, regardless of the victor in this year’s election.

Currently, foreign policy debates in the lead up to the election have been centered around the extremes of retrenchment and internationalism. Retrenchment is the strategy designed to reduce a country’s international and military costs and commitments. Severe retrenchment could pull the United States out of the international order and systems that it has pioneered, such as NATO. Pulling out would indicate that the United States—and by extension, the American people—no longer believe, value, or are invested in the world that they spent decades helping construct. This policy would also provide the United States’ competitors and adversaries with a vacuum to fill. Internationalism, on the other hand, is the strategy that advocates for greater political and/or economic investment in and cooperation among states and nations. In an era of costly defense budgets, the United States can no longer afford to project its power everywhere all at once. The resources needed to execute the purely internationalist vision are astronomical and unsustainable in the long term. Therefore, complete internationalism may not be possible either. A middle of the road, dynamic foreign policy approach may be the best option to ensure the United States maintains its strategic vision while not stretching its resources too thin.

What Could This Dynamic Foreign Policy Look Like?
Extremes of these policies cannot be the only options; a middle road must exist, even if it must be arduously forged. There are multiple options for this middle road, but it will require the United States to think innovatively about how it leverages its allies, engages in conflicts, and anticipates its competitors’ and adversaries’ moves across the globe.

The National Defense Strategy (PDF) identifies China and Russia as the two predominate nations with which the United States is competing. This implies that European Command (EUCOM) and Indo-Pacific Command are the two geographic combatant commands in the crosshairs of U.S. foreign policy. However, China and Russia are competing with the United States not only in these two theaters, but also across Central Command (CENTCOM), Africa Command, and Southern Command (SOUTHCOM). This suggests that the United States must be present in all theaters of the world—perhaps not by being physically present, but being present as an advisor and as an ally, offering countries options beyond those offered to them by China or Russia. Empowering countries to chart their own strategic autonomies can pay dividends for U.S. foreign policy down the line.

To build a successful, dynamic foreign policy, the United States needs to confront its own reputation in regions in which it has historically performed poorly. A small win could be to broker economic deals between European countries and Middle Eastern countries surrounding energy to wean Europe off of Russian natural resources.

In Africa, the United States has seen its adversaries create and strengthen economic and military ties with several countries. China has employed its Belt and Road Initiative to develop deeper economic ties throughout Africa for the past decade. Russia, on the other hand, has expanded its influence in Africa largely through military means. Over the past number of years, the private military company Wagner Group was responsible for much of this. Now, the Russian Ministry of Defense has brought the Wagner Group into a larger organization it deems the “Africa Corps”—a deliberate effort by Russia to initiate and strengthen its military ties across the continent.

Through the intergovernmental organization BRICS, the United States has recently seen its adversaries offer countries beset by economic crises—such as Ethiopia—an alternative to a Western-led economic order. BRICS is seen as an opportunity to elevate voices in the international space and more African countries are expressing interest in joining. U.S. operations in Africa largely focus on security cooperation and counterterrorism missions. Engaging in greater economic cooperation throughout the continent could help assuage critics of U.S. foreign policy in the region.

In Latin America, U.S. foreign policy has been a whirlwind since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. The United States’ reputation in SOUTHCOM can certainly use some improving as well. Along with the domestic issue of immigration, the United States has an uphill battle regarding its foreign policy approach in Latin America, which is known for its history of interventions and forcible regime changes throughout the 20th century. However, the United States has been making strides in areas like Coast Guard counter-drug missions that are executed alongside certain Latin American countries like Colombia. Expanding partnerships with other Latin American countries in counter-narcotics and law enforcements activities could improve the U.S. reputation in the region and strengthen security throughout the Western Hemisphere.

In contrast to the Middle East and Latin America, the U.S. reputation is arguably better in Asia and Europe. This is due, in part, to the vast number of resources that the United States has poured into both regions for decades. For the United States to accomplish its strategic objectives in Europe and Asia while reducing costs, it must be willing to sacrifice at least partial control of operations and entrust its allies and partners to execute tasks that are aligned with U.S. goals.

___________________________________

“The United States needs to work more collaboratively with its regional allies and partners, in a way that reduces costs to the United States while being beneficial to both parties’ foreign policy approaches.”

___________________________________

In Europe, this could be leveraging NATO in ways that disperse responsibilities to member states not only within Europe but also in contested areas throughout Eurasia as well. The United States can also encourage its strongest allies in Asia, Japan, and South Korea, along with its growing partnership with India, to band together in creating multinational agreements to strengthen regional security. These three countries can also lead the charge in creating a multinational coalition in the Pacific centering on democratic ideals, fair trade, and maintaining the international order. These options can empower the United States’ allies to take the lead in certain situations and is one way for the United States to meet strategic goals while reducing the cost burden.

In the past decade, Russia and China have increasingly collaborated in grey zone activities across the globe affecting U.S. partners and allies. Recently, the United States has seen this collaboration on its doorstep. China and Russia’s joint military air patrol off the coast of Alaska last month should be the wake up call the United States needs to know that it can’t do this alone—nor does it need to. The United States needs to work more collaboratively with its regional allies and partners, in a way that reduces costs to the United States while being beneficial to both parties’ foreign policy approaches. By employing a nuanced, dynamic foreign policy approach—one that empowers its allies and partners across the globe, especially in their own backyards—the United States can strengthen its reputation, reduce costs, and counterbalance its competitors and adversaries.

Karishma R. Mehta is a technical analyst and Hunter Stoll is a defense analyst at RAND, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research institution. This article is published courtesy of RAND.