The Opportunity: America's Moment to Alter History's Course
Coming at a time when terrorism and the troubled Iraqi adventure have forced foreign policy thinkers to reexamine their positions, this book is a helpful guide in the search for a new grand strategic synthesis. In his elegant case for a grand strategy of pragmatic internationalism, Haass argues that the United States should seize today's historic opportunity to build a cooperative order of great powers, organized around institutions and partnerships that focus on attacking specific problems: genocide, failed states, pandemic disease, climate change. The United States' unprecedented power and the current accord among major states make the present moment unique, in Haass' view, opening the way for a new Congress of Vienna, where great powers agree on the "rules of the road" and work together to keep the peace. But there is nothing inevitable about this peace -- the leading countries will need to compromise and exercise some strategic restraint to achieve it. Haass' disagreement with the Bush administration, accordingly, is not over the importance of maintaining U.S. primacy; it is over Bush's failure to use that primacy to integrate new states and lay down new global rules or to build a new global consensus on what the terms of sovereignty should be in a world where sovereignty can no longer be considered absolute.
Related
As Afghanistan has shown, keeping the peace in foreign lands requires a variety of tools--some of which Washington just does not have. Rather than avoid peacekeeping entirely, the U.S. government ends up sending in elite military units that get bogged down for years. Developing a constabulary force would be a better answer.
President Bush's case for war on Iraq overlooks a very real danger: if pushed to the wall, Saddam Hussein may resort to using weapons of mass destruction against the United States. Such a strike may not be likely, or may not succeed, but attacking Saddam is the best way to guarantee that it will happen. And Washington has done far too little to prepare for it.
The debates over Kosovo blurred the old divisions between liberals and conservatives, but they did not rise above an even older split in American politics and foreign policy: the enduring divide between a hawkish South and a dovish North. Regional differences based on culture and values have made Greater New England the heartland of opposition to foreign wars and the U.S. military establishment since the 1700s; they have also made the South a bastion of interventionism. All too often, the regional divides over U.S. foreign policy have just been a reprise of the Civil War -- and they are a recipe for paralysis.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.