Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy
Americans tend to see U.S. preeminence as benign or positive -- but around the world, it arouses worry, fear, and resentment. In this landmark book on U.S. power and grand strategy in the age of unipolarity, Walt provides the most lucid and sophisticated account yet of why these negative reactions arise. Drawing on insights from realist theory, he argues that global concern over American dominance is rooted in the insecurities and uncertainties that inevitably exist in a world of anarchy and unequal power. Put simply, other states "worry because the United States is strong enough to act pretty much as it wishes, and other states cannot be sure that Washington will not use its immense power to threaten their own interests." Much of the book explores the strategies that states are using to oppose or counteract U.S. primacy. Although Walt does not find much evidence of full-scale balancing, he does see states using an array of less direct measures to counter U.S. power, such as building realms of regional autonomy and attempting to ensnare the hegemon in international rules and norms. To navigate these troubled waters, he recommends a radical shift by Washington away from a hegemonic grand strategy to one of "off-shore balancing" -- that is, resisting imperial or liberal internationalist activism, particularly in the Middle East, in favor of selective engagement and leading by example. It remains a question, however, whether in a world transformed by globalization and menaced by violent groups, the United States can really pull back from its geopolitical commitments and security leadership.
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.