By Benjamin Friedman
“Nature abhors a vacuum.” Variations of this idea, popularized by Aristotle, are a staple of U.S. political rhetoric, generally marshalled by those who argue that the United States should continue some foreign mission — usually a war or military occupation — lest power there pass to an adversary and decrease U.S. security. We are told, for example, that taking troops out of Syria will benefit Russia or Iran; pulling small contingents of forces from West Africa will strengthen China at U.S. expense; exiting Afghanistan will benefit Russia or China.
Pundits also use vacuum fears more generally to warn against surrendering influence in the developing world. Chinese investment in Africa or in Asia via the Belt and Road Initiative is said to exploit a vacuum that the United States should compete to fill. A potential U.S. military exit from the Middle East is said to risk leaving a vacuum that would be a “gift to Putin.”
This idea that power vacuums occur is not entirely wrong. The removal of U.S. forces or spending from a region can indeed create a vacuum, in which other actors gain some influence. The truly bad idea is the claim that vacuums meaningfully benefit U.S. rivals and endanger Americans.
This piece was originally published in CSIS on December 11, 2020. Read more HERE.