As the US stumbles through its economic challenges at home, the pressure of world events will not subside. However, the US’ ability to address them has changed. Its fiscal weakness limits its ability to act as global policeman. Despite the relatively costless overthrow of former Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s regime, the US’ prolonged interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq have severely strained the public’s tolerance for an active foreign policy.
Nonetheless, the US seems destined to remain the world’s most important actor for the foreseeable future. However, today it is an actor without a script — it lacks a strategic guide comparable to the Cold War’s containment doctrine to prioritize policy.
Quite simply, the ad hoc policymaking that directed interventions in the Balkans, Somalia, Southwest Asia and the Middle East in the past two decades will not suffice in this new era of limitations. This suggests that the US should seek out an overarching strategy to discipline its impulses to fight wars of choice or engage in nation-building efforts.
US President Barack Obama’s National Security Strategy nurtures broad policy aspirations — “[n]ow we must position the United States to champion mutual interests among nations and peoples” — but falls short as a practical guide. I suggest an alternative strategy, one already embedded in US history, though largely unrecognized. However, making explicit what lies implicit can sharpen US decision-making.
I call this strategy the “Watershed Doctrine.” A watershed is a tipping point, a turning point, a game changer. When the US has confronted a “negative watershed” — a lethal threat to the country — it committed meaningful financial and human resources in order to address the risks. Positive watersheds — opportunities to engineer seismic shifts in international or regional political affairs through nation-building, or to use economic and military assistance to prevent plausible negative watersheds — demand an equal level of commitment.
The Watershed concept provides policymakers with a standard to use — or at the very least to debate. It is an organizing tool for policymaking: Is an international challenge a watershed or not? If so, get involved. If not, stay out.
We find watersheds throughout US history. The War of 1812 and the Civil War are clear examples. Had US forces not expelled the British from US territory in the first, and had then-US president Abraham Lincoln and the Union not prevailed in the second, the country would have been balkanized and unable to become the dominant power of the 20th century.
By contrast, the US’ flirtation with colonialism in the Spanish American War, its involvement in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean throughout the 20th century, and, arguably, World War I, were not watersheds for the US. However, the US’ inability after the Great War to overcome Old World politics at Versailles and isolationism at home marked a failed opportunity to promote a positive watershed.
That failure placed the world on the path to the -negative -watershed posed by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Nothing foreordained that the US and its allies would prevail. Had the Axis’s negative watershed succeeded, the US would have become a far different country.
A positive watershed, under-appreciated today, developed in the years immediately after World War II with the political transformation of Germany and Japan. The US’ remarkable investment of resources in this outcome made both countries stable, peaceful democracies, thereby eliminating them as adversaries and turning them into vital bulwarks against the next harbinger of a negative watershed, the Soviet Union.
Unlike the battle against the Axis, the US fought the Cold War in many ways, on many fronts, and over many decades — using politics, economics and nuclear deterrence, as well as limited armed action, to ensure the USSR’s containment. In time, the US had to accept that each political contest or military battle lost was not a watershed as long as its core interests in Europe, the Far East and Latin America were not threatened. Through trial and error — backed by a durable political and economic system — the US prevailed and the Soviet Union disintegrated.
The rise of Islamic fundamentalism poses another historic challenge, though one that is far more inchoate than any that the US has faced before. In other times, the challenge would not even be called a watershed. However, the risk that weapons of mass destruction could be turned against the US makes it so. Then there is the “Arab Spring,” a potential positive watershed that calls upon the US to decide how deep a political, economic and military commitment it ought to make to nurture positive results.
Today, the US is a more sober and realistic country than it was in the heyday of the early post-Cold War period. However, in the aftermath of setbacks in regions where it intervened, and with heightened economic distress at home, the US finds itself uncertain about how to respond to changing global events. Pursuing a “Watershed Doctrine” might provide the right answer.
Bennett Ramberg served in the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs in former US president George H.W. Bush’s administration and is the author of several books on international security.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS