Henry Nau writes: The three steps recommended here to revitalize an American nationalism of internationalism are not inconsistent with the policy stances adopted by new President-elect Donald Trump. If he gives priority to tax and regulatory reforms (which create jobs), takes interim symbolic but not deeply disruptive steps to slow trade and immigration (which satisfy constituents), and cuts more balanced deals to address terrorism and other security issues first with allies and thereafter with Russia, China, and Iran (which restores measured American leadership), he will right the unique republican ship of state that constitutes an American nationalism of internationalism. – The American Interest
Robert Kaplan writes: Indeed, our geography fiercely argues for a balance: be wary of nation-building, but remember the global responsibilities of a maritime nation. After all, it was only by conquering a great desert that we became a sea power — since without reaching the Pacific Coast we never could have built our 300-ship Navy. And it is that Navy, our primary strategic instrument given that nuclear weapons must never be used, that guards the great sea lines of communication along with access to hydrocarbons for our allies, thus allowing for a semblance of global order in the first place. America, precisely because of its geography, is fated to lead. – New York Times
Greg Ip writes: Little unites the new nationalists other than their shared antipathy toward globalism. Mr. Trump’s economic program is as far to the right as Ms. Le Pen’s is to the left. Nor do they have credible plans for replacing the institutions of globalization that they want to tear down, as Britain’s confused exit from the EU demonstrates. But globalists would be wise to face their own shortcomings. They have underestimated the collateral damage that breakneck globalization has inflicted on ordinary workers, placed too much weight on the strategic advantages of trade and dismissed too readily the value that many ordinary citizens still attach to national borders and cultural cohesion. – Wall Street Journal (subscription required)
Mackubin Thomas Owens writes: n sum, The Big Stick is an immensely useful assessment of military power and why it remains necessary. Cohen is especially effective in refuting the arguments against hard power and American hegemony, for as his teacher Samuel Huntington once observed, "The maintenance of U.S. primacy matters for the world as well as for the United States." – The Weekly Standard
Brian Stewart writes: In The Big Stick, Eliot Cohen dissents from this reigning consensus. A professor of Strategic Studies at Johns Hopkins University and a former counselor to the State Department, Cohen assigns himself the task of defending American military power — what Theodore Roosevelt called “the big stick” — as the linchpin of international order. The result is a bracing argument that restores this woefully neglected dimension of statecraft to its proper position as “the last argument of kings — or presidents.” – National Review Online
Robert Kaplan writes: Indeed, our geography fiercely argues for a balance: be wary of nation-building, but remember the global responsibilities of a maritime nation. After all, it was only by conquering a great desert that we became a sea power — since without reaching the Pacific Coast we never could have built our 300-ship Navy. And it is that Navy, our primary strategic instrument given that nuclear weapons must never be used, that guards the great sea lines of communication along with access to hydrocarbons for our allies, thus allowing for a semblance of global order in the first place. America, precisely because of its geography, is fated to lead. – New York Times
Greg Ip writes: Little unites the new nationalists other than their shared antipathy toward globalism. Mr. Trump’s economic program is as far to the right as Ms. Le Pen’s is to the left. Nor do they have credible plans for replacing the institutions of globalization that they want to tear down, as Britain’s confused exit from the EU demonstrates. But globalists would be wise to face their own shortcomings. They have underestimated the collateral damage that breakneck globalization has inflicted on ordinary workers, placed too much weight on the strategic advantages of trade and dismissed too readily the value that many ordinary citizens still attach to national borders and cultural cohesion. – Wall Street Journal (subscription required)
Mackubin Thomas Owens writes: n sum, The Big Stick is an immensely useful assessment of military power and why it remains necessary. Cohen is especially effective in refuting the arguments against hard power and American hegemony, for as his teacher Samuel Huntington once observed, "The maintenance of U.S. primacy matters for the world as well as for the United States." – The Weekly Standard
Brian Stewart writes: In The Big Stick, Eliot Cohen dissents from this reigning consensus. A professor of Strategic Studies at Johns Hopkins University and a former counselor to the State Department, Cohen assigns himself the task of defending American military power — what Theodore Roosevelt called “the big stick” — as the linchpin of international order. The result is a bracing argument that restores this woefully neglected dimension of statecraft to its proper position as “the last argument of kings — or presidents.” – National Review Online
RSS Feed