Follow us on social

google cta
Saint Augustine Hippo

Philosopher saints Augustine, Aquinas guide US grand strategy

Prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance — all necessary for a policy of restraint

Analysis | Global Crises
google cta
google cta

The art of grand strategy is often treated as an exercise in power projection, deterrence, and securing national interests in an anarchic international order. Yet, the great thinkers of the Western tradition provide a deeper moral and philosophical framework for thinking about statecraft.

Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, drawing on the classical tradition, particularly Plato, developed an enduring vision of virtue that should inform our understanding of leadership and strategy. Their articulation of the cardinal virtues — prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance — offers a timeless lens through which to frame and evaluate grand strategy.

Each of these virtues plays a role in crafting a sound approach to foreign policy, but temperance stands out as the most vital in a world where great powers risk overextension, unnecessary conflicts, and countless other self-inflicted wounds ultimately grounded in hubris and the desire for primacy.

A grand strategy of restraint, rooted in the cardinal virtues as understood by Augustine and Aquinas, provides a sustainable and morally coherent alternative to the excesses of primacy and other hubristic temptations. By analyzing each virtue’s relevance to grand strategy, we can see how restraint emerges not only as an ethical pathway but as a practical approach to strategy too.

Prudence: The Foundation of Strategic Wisdom

Prudence, or practical wisdom, is the ability to make sound judgments in uncertain and complex environments. Augustine and Aquinas saw prudence as the first among virtues, for it guides and orders the others, ensuring that justice, fortitude, and temperance are properly exercised. It is the intellectual cornerstone of grand strategy, guiding leaders to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary conflicts, essential and peripheral interests, and achievable versus illusory objectives.

A prudent grand strategy acknowledges the limits of power. The United States, for example, has learned – sometimes at great cost – that power projection without clear strategic objectives leads to quagmires, as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Prudence dictates that policymakers recognize the costs of overextension and the diminishing returns of military interventions that lack clear, attainable goals.

Restraint, as a strategic posture, aligns with prudence by prioritizing essential interests, avoiding unnecessary entanglements, and preserving national power for when it is truly needed. This means distinguishing between existential threats and those that can be managed through diplomacy, alliances, and economic statecraft rather than through military force.

Justice: The Ethical Dimension of Statecraft

Justice in grand strategy involves the fair and proportional use of power. Aquinas, building on Augustine, linked justice to the proper ordering of society and the common good. It recognizes that the ends do not always justify the means and that a great power’s legitimacy depends on its adherence to certain moral principles, both at home and abroad.

A restrained grand strategy is more just than one based on primacy or interventionism because it avoids unnecessary wars, minimizes collateral damage, and upholds national commitments responsibly. The reckless use of force, even if tactically successful, can erode long-term legitimacy, as seen in the reputational costs borne by the United States in the aftermath of the Iraq War.

Justice also requires that great powers respect the sovereignty of other nations rather than engaging in coercive regime change or perpetual military interventions. A restrained strategy, therefore, upholds international stability by avoiding the cycle of intervention and backlash that has characterized much of U.S. foreign policy in the post-Cold War era.

Fortitude: Strength Without Hubris

Fortitude, or courage, is essential in grand strategy, but it must be directed toward sustainable goals rather than reckless ambitions.

Augustine viewed fortitude as the virtue that enables a ruler to endure hardships for a just cause, rather than seeking dominance for its own sake. True fortitude lies in balancing power and blunting threats without succumbing to the overconfidence of primacy and hegemony. Seeking dominance in every region, engaging in endless conflicts, or assuming global leadership in all matters is not strength — it is hubris. Strength, by contrast, involves carefully defining national objectives, defending core interests, and acknowledging limits.

A grand strategy of restraint requires fortitude because it demands the discipline to avoid unnecessary conflicts while still maintaining credible deterrence. Balancing power means ensuring that no single actor dominates a strategic region, while blunting threats involves using a mix of diplomacy, alliances, and selective military capabilities to check adversaries without excessive entanglement.

This approach reflects a realist understanding of power: it is finite and must be applied judiciously rather than squandered in futile attempts to maintain global hegemony.

Temperance: The Keystone of Restraint

Among the cardinal virtues, temperance — or self-restraint — is the most directly applicable to grand strategy. Augustine and Aquinas emphasized temperance as the virtue that ensures wisdom, courage, and justice work in harmony rather than excess. In strategic terms, temperance means avoiding overreach, avoiding unnecessary conflicts, and being disciplined when it comes to allocating resources.

A grand strategy of restraint is, at its core, a strategy of temperance. It acknowledges that national power is finite and that preserving strength for essential objectives is wiser than dissipating it through excessive military commitments in pursuit of chimerical goals. The decline of past great powers — from Rome to Britain — illustrates the dangers of imperial overreach.

The lesson for the United States is clear: strategic patience and careful prioritization are necessary to avoid repeating these historical patterns.

Temperance also applies to economic and diplomatic tools. Overuse of sanctions, for example, can lead to diminishing returns, driving adversaries toward alternative financial systems and undermining long-term leverage.

Similarly, a foreign policy that demands ideological conformity from allies can backfire, alienating partners who might otherwise share strategic interests. A restrained grand strategy, grounded in temperance, avoids these pitfalls by exercising measured influence rather than attempting to dominate every aspect of international affairs.

The Virtue of Restraint

A grand strategy of restraint, built on these virtues, is not an abdication of leadership but a recalibration of it. It recognizes that true strength lies not in trying to maintain and police the so-called Rules-Based International Order but in the wise conservation of national power and the application of that power to achieve more limited ends.

It accepts that some global challenges must be managed rather than solved through force. And it embraces a long-term vision in which stability and national security are preserved through judicious, rather than excessive, engagement.

The United States faces a world of multipolarity, regional rivalries, and shifting alliances. In such an environment, the cardinal virtues, as articulated by Augustine and Aquinas, offer not just an ethical compass but a strategic blueprint. Restraint, guided by prudence, justice, fortitude, and above all, temperance, provides the surest path to sustainable global engagement in the twenty-first century.


Top photo credit: Saint Augustine in His Study, a fresco painting of Augustine of Hippo executed in 1480 by the Italian Renaissance master Sandro Botticelli. It is in the church of Ognissanti in Florence. (Wikimedia Commons)
google cta
Analysis | Global Crises
NPT
Top image credit: Milos Ruzicka via shutterstock.com

We are sleepwalking into nuclear catastrophe

Global Crises

In May of his first year as president, John F. Kennedy met with Israeli President David Ben-Gurion to discuss Israel’s nuclear program and the new nuclear power plant at Dimona.

Writing about the so-called “nuclear summit” in “A State at Any Cost: The Life of David Ben-Gurion,” Israeli historian Tom Segev states that during this meeting, “Ben-Gurion did not get much from the president, who left no doubt that he would not permit Israel to develop nuclear weapons.”

keep readingShow less
Ambassador Robert Hunter
Top photo credit: Former NATO Ambassador Robert Hunter at the American Academy of Diplomacy's 17th Annual Awards Luncheon, 12/14/2006. (Reuters)

RIP Amb. Robert Hunter, who warned about NATO expansion

Europe

The world of foreign policy restraint is poorer today with the passing of Robert Hunter, an American diplomat, who was the U.S. ambassador to NATO in 1993-1998. He also served as a senior official on both the Western Europe and Middle East desks in President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Council.

For decades, Hunter was a prominent, sober, and necessary voice of restraint in Washington. To readers of Responsible Statecraft, he was an occasional author who shared his insights, particularly on Europe. To those of us who knew Robert personally, he was a mentor and a friend whose tremendous knowledge was matched only by his generosity in sharing it.

keep readingShow less
NATO Summit 2025
Top photo credit: NATO Summit, the Hague, June 25, 2025. (Republic of Slovenia/Daniel Novakovič/STA/flickr)

Will NATO survive Trump?

Europe

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump threatened to place new punitive tariffs on European allies until they acquiesce to his designs on Greenland, an escalation of his ongoing attempts to acquire the large Arctic island for the United States.

Critics loudly decried the move as devastating for the transatlantic relationship, echoing Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Fredericksen’s earlier warning that a coercive U.S. seizure of the semi-autonomous Danish territory would mean the end of NATO.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.