Winning the Right War: The Path to Security for America and the World
The Bush administration's framing of the United States' post-9/11 national security challenge as a "war on terror" has profoundly influenced the nation's worldview and twenty-first-century grand strategy. In this small, profoundly sensible book, Gordon questions the entire intellectual edifice of the "war on terror" and offers an alternative strategy of containment and engagement. Like others, Gordon argues that the language of war evokes the wrong strategic imagery, mischaracterizing the nature of the enemy, the causes of terrorism, and what the appropriate tools of the struggle are. Gordon proposes that if the conflict must be called a war, the United States should be fighting a very different one, recognizing that "victory is more likely to be achieved by maintaining America's strength, cohesion, and appeal than by destroying its enemies through the force of arms." Gordon suggests that Washington should borrow insights from its Cold War-era struggle with Soviet communism. This means patiently managing threats, preserving the values of U.S. society, and winning over friends and allies. Gordon wants to rebuild U.S. credibility and appeal as a global leader, tackle the hard problem of energy dependence, and shift emphasis in the Middle East from Iraq to building a wider regional coalition to pursue peace between Israel and the Palestinians and to adopting a containment-plus-overtures approach to Iran. A glimmer of the United States' next grand strategy appears in these pages.
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.