Preponderance vs. [Offshore] Balancing

The national security strategy of Preponderance has been at play for the duration of the Cold War and has carried over as a remnant of the containment doctrine since the conclusion of the Cold War. Preponderance is the belief that American interests are best served by a unipolar world. Components of Preponderance include three major elements; first, American preeminence must be maintained; second, challenges to American preeminence must be prevented; third, international interdependence must be encouraged.

The strategy of offshore balancing is quite the opposite of preponderance. Offshore balancing accepts that rivals to American preeminence will arise and that those may eventually take the place of America as the world's hegemon. This is largely accepted and even to be anticipated. Interdependence in the Balancing sphere is not something to be sought after per se, but is more a byproduct of acceptable international exchange. Offshore balancing is a rather isolationist idea by which a large percentage of American overseas military assets would be redeployed to the continental United States.

The preponderance argument suggests that the world (America and her allies) has been made safe over the last six decades as a result of American preeminence. The argument points to Europe and states that numerous great power wars were waged prior to 1950, but once America was permanently engaged there, there has been relative peace on that continent. Therefore, a continued strategy which seeks American hegemony in the world would continue to assure peace in the world. The insistence is that the one is the result of the other. Offshore balancing states that there is nothing to prove this correlation, and that by America continuing to engage in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East the same way it has for the last six decades, it perpetuates a national security doctrine which is outdated and in need of revision.

The balancing argument states that America wastes resources by continuing to assert its unipolar pipe-dream, and that ultimately it will have to face the fact that great powers come and go and its glory is fleeting. This argument insists that although America won't always be the one great power in the world, it will be a great power in the world for a long time to come, and this is where the balancing aspect comes into play. Balancing reasonably asserts that although the world will not always be unipolar, and that other powers will eventually have great sway in world politics, America will always be a power of great authority, and will always be able to influence world politics in a direction which will be beneficial for American national security.

Preponderance insists that the most effective way to insure continued peace and stability, and the prosperity that results, is to insure economic and security interdependence among every possible nation. This notion is based on the belief that nations will not go to war against other nations with which they have heavy economic ties. There is also an element of interdependence based on America's overarching strategy of defending its close allies. Those allies are dependent on America for defense and, in most cases, are perfectly willing to continue to allow America to shoulder that burden. As long as nations are interdependent, they will be much less likely to go to war with each other. The argument also suggests that as long as America stays engaged in this passive role, though quite costly, it will prevent the much more costly result of having to intervene from the outside in the event of a great power war.

The cost of this strategy is the greatest element of contention to offshore balancing. The costs of insuring good behavior amongst America's allies overseas could be better spend domestically. The balancing argument insists that those nations should be able to get along without the American monolith standing between them. If they are still unable, as they always had been until 1950, the balancing strategy would allow them to fight their wars at their own expense with the ever present condition that when those wars become detrimental to American national security, America will intervene to tip the balance in its own favor.



Layne, Christopher. “From Preponderance to Offshore Balancing: America’s Future Grand Strategy.” In America’s Strategic Choices: Revised Edition, edited by Michael E. Brown, Owen R. Cote, Jr., Sean M. Lynn-Jones, and Steven E. Miller, 99-140. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2000.