Foreign Policy Strategy that has always been used in regard to foreign policy has somehow left the United State not to be in a position to implement the domestic policy effectively and this has made the citizen feel the effect of this wrong strategy towards foreign policy. Economically, in terms of security, and our relation with other countries have deteriorated because of this. Different scholars and some politician have already voiced their concerns on how the rise of China is slowly shipping away at the United States' preponderance of power, the budget crisis, and involvement into the two long wars that have left the U.S. military as well as the public be exhausted. Hence they have seen the need for United State to minimize its global military presence, shed the security ties it has overseas, and minimize its effort of leading the liberal international order and just concentrate more domestically.

For decades United States has been involved in taking actions based on the foreign policy that as much as are of importance to the peace of the world, to greater extent they have not been of help to the United States because of the effects that the citizens has to cope up with. This ambitious foreign policy have been trying to rescue failing states: intervening using its military in Libya, Haiti, Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, in an attempt to defend human rights, do away with undesired nationalist movements, as well as establish democratic regimes. Rogue states that have pose threat to the world have also been to the receiving end such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Syria is now on the way. War on terrorism against al Qaeda after the 9/11 left painful wars in Afghanistan.

Since all these have had negative effects to the United State economically (crisis in budget), in terms of security (U.S. citizens are attacked), and relations with other countries have continued to deteriorate. Therefore, this has called for a change of strategy especially in this 2013 and in the coming days. The U.S. policymakers have to be aware that most of the wealthy allies not always rush to surrendering their sovereignty to regional powers. Based on the history, states like that balance against the powerful instead of locking horns with them. Therefore United States has to take the direction of deterring any actions that might threaten its key interests may be by defining such interests narrowly, clearly stating them, and maintain sufficient military power that can protect them.

Even though some groups are to the idea that United States continue with its long outdated strategy of wasting resources and earning enmity from other states. Maybe the recent economic and geographical trends may come back to the track and that the policymakers will remain comfortable in the driving seat. What about incase the U.S. debts continue to grow and power keep on shifting to other countries, hence economic and political crisis, (Barry R. Posen, 2013). This will be a more dangerous.

Following the strategies that the United States have used in foreign policy, the result has left several challenges that foreign policymakers have to deal with. The need to come up with strategies that will help in defending the United States against al Qaeda as well as other related successor groups. Given that these terrorists threatens Americans lives, a prudent defensive measures should be put in place to assist in lowering the risks of attacks. They should also be aware that Iran will never accept zero enrichment and Iran have already shown that they can use any other means to acquire nuclear weapon. Even if U.S. were to use force in damaging Iran's nuclear infrastructure, they are capable of rebuilding it and disperse it, the United States might end up attacking them forever. They are also aware that another Mideast war may be a disaster for United States and others and on the other hand the deal might get worse the longer an effective action delays further.

According to the approach that people have seen the Obama's government take toward Iran and even Syria, it reveals a realization for need to change the strategy to foreign relation, (Paul Richter, 2011). The strategy is kind of moving away from the hegemonic one to the one of restraint. This kind of approach would mean that the United States will have to shift from global reform to sticking on just protecting specific security interests. The idea is that the military is to be transformed into a smaller force that is involved in a war only where there is unavoidable...

It involves also withdrawal of the large number of U.S. troops from forward bases, and creating for these allies incentive that they can use in providing their own security, as the way we have seen done in Afghanistan after military forces were called back and there was restraint towards Libya. The approach will not only create good relation with other nations but also make the United States to spend its resources on just the most pressing international threats. Moreover, it will ensure security and prosperity of the nation at the end.
As much as this restrained grand strategy is the one seen by many as the most effective by many, United States should retreat into isolationism but still focus on three biggest security challenges such as fighting terrorists, preventing a powerful rival from the global balance of power, as well as limiting nuclear proliferation. The obligation is to develop more carefully, calculated and discriminating policies that can work well without affecting our nation adversely.

Brooks, Ikenberry and Wohlforth have criticized ideas such as the one hold by Posen who are libertarian isolationists who are trying to bring almost the entire U.S. military home, as well as try to bring a more robust which is less extravagant defense budget and does not favor isolationism but just a more limited forms of international engagement. The three amazingly have devoted themselves to what was formerly termed "liberal hegemony" which they have now turned to name it "deep engagement." They have continued to argue that deep engagement have remained to be the U.S. grand strategy since World War II believing that this was the optimal strategy used during bipolar Cold War, at the time United State was facing a global threat coming from major great power rival.

Brooks, Ikenberry and Wohlforth have given full credit to "deep engagement" for almost the entire positive things that have taken place since 1945, despite the fact that the direct connection between development and strategy has been ever been questions. On the other hand, they do not include this strategy when talking about the entire negative occurrence during the same period. They have agreed to acknowledge the 2003 war in Iraq to have been costly blunders, yet they categorize it as deviation from "deep engagement" refusing to accept that this was a consequential strategy that saw the whole world to be of critical importance as well as remaking the rest of the societies along liberal lines as desired greatly if not strategically of importance.

The three have ignored the issue of opportunity cost to a greater extent. Those who have advocated for restraint such as Posen do not imply that U.S. cannot afford to intervene in many occurrences, they are just trying to say that the U.S. would be in a good position with minimized set of commitments as well as a more equitable separation of labor between us and our principle allies, (Peter Trubowitz, 2012). In case spending of U.S. was not fur exceeding for the world combined on "deep engagement" there could be a more balanced diet, lower taxes, more invest in domestic infrastructure, or provide more generous health or welfare benefits.

Brooks, Ikenberry and Wohlforth further agues that nobody has ever tried to balance American power therefore deep engagement works. According to them majority of the world are in favor of this approach and wants the government to go on with the strategy. Indeed this is not a surprise because the reason why Japan or NATO countries not prefer a situation where they only spend 1-2% of GDP on defense while the rest of the burden is taken by "Big Boy" (U.S.). Deep thinkers just like Posen encourage restraint believing that doing somehow less is capable of encouraging present allies to see the need of bearing a fairer share of the burden as well as discourage others from adventurist behavior persuaded by excessive confidence in protection that is provided by U.S. Playing hard to get sometimes can make the allies discover the need to do in securing their own interests and remain eligible. Alternative way away from bending over backwards in trying to convince the whole of the world that we are 100% reliable, Washington should be engaged in discouraging the rest of the state to bend over backwards as they convince us that they really worth supporting.

The event that seems to be of importance to the current administration in regard to American foreign policy priorities is the issue of Syria, the worry is that…