Van Jackson has written the go-to guide for understanding progressive grand strategies. His book stands out among a bewildering array of U.S. grand strategy proposals and taxonomies. He also provides a succinct overview of the evolution of progressivism in the United States. Proponents can make use of the book to sharpen their arguments. Critics will find the clear enunciation of positions as useful foils. Finally, there are a myriad of propositions that scholars can assess.

Jackson argues progressive grand strategies seek to address the sources of insecurity rather than treat the symptoms. Grand strategy is a theory for obtaining security, a definition which draws from Barry Posen. Yet for Jackson security must be understood in a broad sense. That necessitates an emphasis on public policy and deemphasis on military tools.

Progressive grand strategy unites around two claims. First, the costs of liberal internationalism—what others label primacy, deep engagement, or liberal hegemony—outweigh the benefits. Moreover, US leaders unduly privilege the military tool. Here progressives align with realist critics of post-Cold War U.S. grand strategy clustered around labels such as restraint or offshore balancing. Even during the Cold War, one found prominent realists opposing U.S. military action and policy at times. The progressive logic is discr