"American Empire Debate: Bradley Thayer v. Christopher Layne," Critical Review Essay

Excerpt #1:

Thayer does offer sufficient support using data charts and statistical graphs that the American empire does provide international stability and economic prosperity to a certain extent as well as his assessment of the immense power the United States military wields; however some significant flaws exist within his argument for primacy. Thayer’s portrayal of the United States as an altruistic nation which willingly takes on the role as a global police force is somewhat outrageous and far-stretched. Thayer says earlier in his argument that leaders of the American empire do not call attention to themselves and the immense power of the state for the purposes of avoiding other states balancing against the U.S. Therefore, I am at a loss of words as to why the United States would take on the role as global police, crushing the evil and helping the good, if it were trying to stay out of negative international attention and avoid being perceived as an international threat. If the American empire were as generous as he labeled it, might it rescue more Third world countries in need or perhaps put an end to the ethnic conflict in Darfur?

Excerpt #2:

While Layne’s argument began with a great deal of potential, it quickly digressed from explaining the grand strategy of self-resistance to focusing solely on the conflict in Iraq and bashing of the Bush administration as supporting evidence. Layne claims that terrorist groups like al Qaeda are a form of backlash against longstanding U.S. policies of primacy in the Middle East (69). While this stance does hold some credence, his argument needed more than the Iraq case. If perhaps large scale military interventions similar to Iraq became a more common occurrence in future U.S. strategy, this notion of preemption/prevention, then Layne might have been able to support his claim that primacy hurts the U.S. more strongly.
I agree with Layne in that grand strategists must be aware that over-investing in security in the short term can weaken the state in the long term by eroding the economic foundations of national power and the democratic domestic politics of the American empire (121). Furthermore, I agree with Thayer in that American primacy does offer some international stability in terms of economics and global security institutions. But the fact remains that the international system is one defined by anarchy, therefore whether the American empire engages in primacy or self-restraint, outside relations with other states and globalization will ultimately determine the future. Both arguments contained significant flaws, largely ignored the fact that globalization affects how states act regardless if implementing a strategy of self-restraint or primacy, and were unable to convince me one way or the other what the grand strategy for United States policy should entail.