Commitments and Power (on Rob’s 6-13 comment)

Walter Lippman said that Foreign Policy is “bringing into balance, with a comfortable margin of power in reserve, the nation’s commitments and the nation’s power.” At the end of WWII the US was the dominant power. It was the kind of dominance that cannot last long without an outmoded kind of empire that a free nation could not undertake even if it wanted to. We took on extensive commitments, primarily the defense of our side in the Cold War. By the time the Cold War ended we were no longer in that kind of dominant position. Even though (perhaps because) the world had definitely turned our way, the most we could aspire to was to be the first among equals. (For a professional description of this view read Fareed Zakaria’s The Post American World.) http://www.amazon.com/Post-American-World-Fareed-Zakaria/dp/039306235X  This brings me to my main complaint with Bill Clinton. In 1992 the Cold War was over. America’s 45 year long foreign policy had succeeded. NATO’s mission was accomplished. “Done, done, and done. Now what?” What he should have done was get with Congress and formulate a new bipartisan foreign policy. Assess the threats, set the objectives. Most importantly recognize that our new financial position meant that we could no longer do whatever we wanted to. Power is measured in productivity. We produce 20-25 % of the world’s goods and services and we make 50% of the world’s military expenditures. The nation’s commitments and the nation’s power are out of balance, and our reserve (money) is actually negative.