Charlie Rose Via Youtube: ‘The Future Of Foreign Policy’

Full video here. (Zbigniew Brzezinski, David Ignatius, Jim Jones and Michael Mazarr respond to Mazarr’s new article “The Risk Of Ignoring Strategic Insolvency“) More discussion of the piece here.

Are the days of 20th-century hegemonic power truly over?  Has America stretched her military thinner and thinner much beyond what her economy and public sentiment can bear?  Is prudence the best guide and are we groping towards a new foreign policy model with more balanced powers?   Can our politics respond?

How and whom do we lead, according to what ideas, and how do we get others to follow?

A few interesting points mentioned:


1.  Even with a good strategy, we can still get bogged down in responding to event after event tactically.  Without a good strategy or model, it’s much more likely.  We may need to think about a major realignment of our resources.

2.  Brzezinski points out that either through Iraq and Afghanistan-like military occupation or through the Libya model, America is still betting on horses in the Middle-East by supplying guns, supporting rebels with special-ops on the ground, and I’d argue even through advocacy for human rights through NGOs which could eventually involve us more deeply.  Such activities involve us morally, and could involve us in future unforeseen ways even if our primary focus is no longer the Cold War.  We need to take a step back and recognize this.  Brzezinski’s “oughts” for America lean toward the the more liberal internationalist framework which would require checking our power and inducing say, China and Russia who don’t share many of our interests and values, into greater involvement.

***Despite his depth (he’s usually a few steps ahead), I think this leads Brzezinski to say that the American on the street, self-interested, mostly ignorant and focused on his own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, will be insufficently broad-minded to support the kind of policy Brzezinski might ultimately like to see.  This involves a vision of who does have legitimate moral authority over the rest of us.

I’d add that all participants in the video have their own ideas, professional obligations and responsibilities (defending their own records or promoting their careers and positions) in trying to define tough problems, gather facts, and figure out the best way forward.

Interesting discussion.  Any thoughts and comments are welcome.

Related On This SiteObama’s Decision On Missile Defense And A Quote From Robert Kagan’s: ‘The Return Of History And The End Of Dreams’…Do we try and invest in global institutions as flawed as they are…upon the raft of Kantian perpetual peace?:  Daniel Deudney On YouTube Responding to Robert Kagan: Liberal Democracy Vs. Autocracy

From The American Interest Online: Francis Fukuyama On Samuel Huntington

Brzezinski and Kissinger still having it out?:  From Newsweek: Henry Kissinger ‘Deployments And Diplomacy’ Youtube Via Foreign Affairs: Zbigniew Brzezinski Discusses NATO And Foreign Policy

From The American Interest Online: Francis Fukuyama On Samuel Huntington….is neoconservative foreign policy defunct…sleeping…how does a neoconservatism more comfortable with liberalism here at home translate into foreign policy?: Wilfred McClay At First Things: ‘The Enduring Irving Kristol’

Francis Fukuyama At Foreign Affairs-’Foreign Affairs Editor Gideon Rose on Charlie Rose…how are our moral obligations determined, and what can political science do?:  Update And Repost- From YouTube: Leo Strauss On The Meno-More On The Fact/Value Distinction?’

The liberal vision for higher ed:  From The Harvard Educational Review-A Review Of Martha Nussbaum’s ‘Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education.’

Add to Technorati Favorites

Leave a Reply