ABSTRACT
This chapter begins by discussing the contours of the grand strategy debate. The debate over American grand strategy is more normative than it is descriptive. All observers agree that, by historical standards, the United States is a superpower that has perceived interests that are unusually broad, stretching across the entire globe. The chapter argues that none of these perspectives can support the unitary actor model. It presents the three main justifications given for the unitary actor model by realist thinkers, namely, those of human nature, nationalism, and selection, before showing why none of them is completely satisfying. Scholars have sought to understand American grand strategy from a more abstract perspective that begins by considering states and great powers more generally. American grand strategy, said to be a mix of primacy and liberal internationalism, has overstretched us abroad and neglected more vital national security interests for the sake of less important goals.
