The News:

U.N. Seeks End to Razing of Homes in East Jerusalem, NYT May 1, 2009
Videotape Complicates U.S. Deal With Emirates, NYT May 2, 2009
Tehran rejects EU-GCC statement on islands, Tehran Times, May 2, 2009
Her Rival Now Her Boss, Clinton Settles Into New Role, NYT May 2, 2009
U.S. to Drop Spy Case Against Pro-Israel Lobbyists, NYT May 2, 2009
Israel Faces a Hard Sell in Bid to Shift Policy, NYT May 4, 2009

Two years ago:

Alternative Futures (Hastedt pp 409-423=Abel’s Coursepack 116-123)  

What is the national interest?  Are we falling victim to the "victory disease?"  How should we define the principal threat(s) to US national security?  What responsibilities do we have toward other states and toward the global community?

  1. US as an ordinary state: not do too much, proportionate rels, good global citizen only
  1. Reformed America: don’t fixate on power (vs selfish business promotion and empire! For democracy! - be true to our ideals! - corrupting officials abroad will come back to haunt us), or over rely on military; push demo and intl order “conducive to traditional American values” –neo-Wilsonianism
  1. Global Manager: main threats economic not military, bailouts, world well being in era of global interdependence – WTO, Kyoto Protocol?
  1. Pragmatic America: focus on military prime threats, selectively secure other states, limited responsibility selective allies – “international posses” (Bush 41) or coalitions of the willing.
  1. Neo-Containment: military power, core allies, balance of power minimal UN
  1. Triumphant (but status quo) America: WMD prime threat, limited responsibility to others, enforce wld order – unilaterally if necessary!
  1. American (military missionary) Crusader: immediate threats to nat security, help allies, great intl responsibility that USA determines as sees fit. (see Coyne and Davies, pp. 27-28, on US military bases)
  1. America the Balancer: return to multipolar world is inevitable, threats are mainly self inflicted because of security commitments to protect economic interests, limited because every state is responsible for self, limited global community responsibilities
  1. Disengaged America: danger of over-reactive foreign policy, limited responsibility to others or to global agenda.

 
 

Futures Globalization balance  military power economic power soft power promote democracy multilateralism 2007 class 2009 class
The Choices:
of power


 democ
n=313 n=131








% vote % vote
US as ordinary state




maybe yes 19.8 19.1
Reformed America yes no no yes yes yes strong 22 37.4
Global Manager yes no no yes yes no yes 18.5 16
Pragmatic America yes maybe yes no no no limited 9.9 7.6
Neo-Containment no yes yes yes yes no no minimal 2.9 3.1
Triumphant America negative WOT no yes
no no no lead 2.2 0
American Crusader more negative no yes yes no maybe dominate 6.4 0.8
America the Balancer no yes police?
no no limited 12.8 14.5
Disengaged America no yes


no limited 5.4 1.5


The Choices

Hopes and Fears and Questions

__________________________________________________________________________________