2021-11-21-兰德-联盟和伙伴关系是否让美国卷入冲突_（英）_89页_906kb

This report examines whether U.S. alliances and partnerships entangle the United States in conflicts contrary to its direct interests. The debate centers on two views: one argues alliances embolden partners, risking entanglement, while the other contends U.S. leverage deters risky behavior.

Key findings:

1. Entanglement Dynamics: U.S. alliances have contributed to conflicts in cases like Korea, Vietnam, and Taiwan, driven by credibility concerns. However, no clear cases of entrapment (U.S. fighting to defend allies against its interests) exist.

2. Alliance Terms: The U.S. prefers defensive, conditional alliances, which globally reduce conflict initiation. However, U.S. alliances may still influence individual partner behavior.

3. U.S. Restraint: The U.S. has succeeded and failed in restraining allies, depending on power dynamics and leverage. Allies' dependence on U.S. security complicates this calculus.

4. Trade-offs and Recommendations: Alliances offer both security and entanglement risks. Policymakers must weigh these, but the report does not recommend changing alliances. More research is needed to better understand entanglement prevalence and effectiveness of restraint.

In conclusion, while entanglement risks exist, the absence of clear entrapment cases suggests U.S. interests remain paramount, but alliances and partnerships introduce complexity to decision-making.