There is an undercurrent of thinking in foreign policy circles that a
restrained, less actively engaged approach to the country's external
relations may best conform to American national interests and
capabilities. It has emerged as counterpoint to the hyper activism that
has characterized the United States' dealings in the world during the
post-9/11 era. Its key postulates are the following:
• There exists no direct threat to our vital interests of a magnitude &/or immediacy; we are more secure than at any time since the 1920s.
• This relatively benign environment permits us to be selective in deciding where we might assert American powers -- the use of military force in particular.
• Our current over extension as driven by the pursuit of global dominance is draining national resources for at best marginal increments in influence and at times are counter productive
• We can and should rely more on others to address the problems created by those who are hostile to us and who may destabilize regions where we have significant concerns.
• Such a strategic perspective entails a more discriminating attitude toward the promotion of democratic forces in places where autocratic regimes do not follow policies that endanger our interests or friends.
• Specific terrorist threats should be treated primarily as an intelligence/police problem; we should refrain from trying to arrange the affairs of other societies to prevent the deterioration of conditions conducive to terrorist recruitment and organization
Read more: A "Laid Back" American Foreign Policy? | Michael Brenner
• There exists no direct threat to our vital interests of a magnitude &/or immediacy; we are more secure than at any time since the 1920s.
• This relatively benign environment permits us to be selective in deciding where we might assert American powers -- the use of military force in particular.
• Our current over extension as driven by the pursuit of global dominance is draining national resources for at best marginal increments in influence and at times are counter productive
• We can and should rely more on others to address the problems created by those who are hostile to us and who may destabilize regions where we have significant concerns.
• Such a strategic perspective entails a more discriminating attitude toward the promotion of democratic forces in places where autocratic regimes do not follow policies that endanger our interests or friends.
• Specific terrorist threats should be treated primarily as an intelligence/police problem; we should refrain from trying to arrange the affairs of other societies to prevent the deterioration of conditions conducive to terrorist recruitment and organization
Read more: A "Laid Back" American Foreign Policy? | Michael Brenner
No comments:
Post a Comment