A very interesting short contribution at the AEI website, written by Gary J. Schmitt. The title of the article: “To Be, or Not to Be . . . an Empire.” Read it in its entirety, here are the last three paragraphs:
As former Reagan and Clinton administration official Stephen Sestanovich has argued, it is historically inaccurate to see George W. Bush’s foreign policy as marking “a dramatic departure from that of his predecessors.” When one examines “the primary security problems” facing the preceding three presidents–Clinton (Kosovo and the Balkans), George H. W. Bush (the end of the Cold War and German reunification), and Reagan (the East-West confrontation and the deployment of intermediate missiles in Europe)–one discovers an underlying continuity in policy: rejecting compromise, rocking the boat of conventional thinking, and ignoring the worries of key allies. In short, “to look at how the Bush Administration’s immediate predecessors dealt with the most important international challenges of their time is to see the true maximalist tradition of our diplomacy. The current administration has put its own stamp on this tradition; it did not originate it.”[8]
This does not mean that criticism of how the Bush team has carried out its strategy or criticism of the strategy itself is unwarranted. Nor does it mean that a new presidency should necessarily follow in its predecessors’ footsteps. But traditions tend to exist for good reasons. They usually reflect a response to an underlying reality that is not easily overcome or ignored. As Robert Kagan notes in his groundbreaking history of America’s early foreign policy, that tradition springs not from one man or one party, but largely from the character of the regime itself as it confronts the world around it.[9] From day one, Americans have been pushing outward, and their statecraft has always rested uneasily with the world as they found it. As often as not, circumstances permitting, Washington has been in the business of trying to change the status quo of international affairs.
It is possible, of course, that in 2008 we may see the election of a president who will take the nation in a direction substantially different from that of his pred-ecessors. But if recent history is any guide–and if the world remains as it is–it will be difficult for a new president, regardless of his wishes, to lay aside the mantle of American leadership. Both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton entered office hoping to reduce America’s profile in the world, creating a more modest foreign policy; both will have left understanding just how difficult–if not impossible–a task that is.
Interesting food for thought.
