Three tough-minded pieces oer
dierent ways Washington could lower
its sights. Graham Allison suggests
dealing with the loss o hegemony by
accepting spheres o inuence. Jennifer
Lind and Daryl Press favor limiting
U.S. objectives to whatever the domes-
tic and international markets will bear.
And Stephen Krasner advises settling
for good enough governance in the
world. Lastly, Kathleen Hicks throws
cold water on hopes (or fears) o any
dramatic defense cuts, explaining what
it would actually take to reduce mili-
tary spending and why it’s so much
easier said than done.
Similar calls for retrenchment were
heard hal a century ago, when the
United States was at another low ebb in
its global fortunes—facing declining
relative power, increasing isolationism,
a lost war in the periphery, a scandal-
ridden president under siege. But just a
few years later, after some creative
strategy and diplomacy, the country had
extricated itsel¤ from Vietnam, re-
shaped the global balance o power,
reestablished its position in Asia, and
become the dominant force in the
Middle East. And although it took a
while, the U.S. economy ultimately rose
to the challenge posed by increased
international competition and came out
stronger for it. Could such miracles
repeat themselves, or is it ¥nally time
for America to come home?
—Gideon Rose, EditorW
ealth and power breed
ambition, in countries as in
people. Nations on the rise
dream big, dare greatly, and see failure as
a challenge to be overcome. The same
process works in reverse: nations on the
wane scale back their ambitions, cut losses,
and see failure as a portent to be heeded.
Feeling down these days, the United
States is questioning the global role it
once embraced. The empire that Wash-
ington absent-mindedly acquired during
usher times now seems to cost more
than it’s worth, and many want to shed
the burden. What that might involve is
the subject o this issue’s lead package.
Thomas Wright and Stephen Wert-
heim kick o the debate with strong
statements o the central arguments on
each side. In general, Wright notes,
American alliances, security guarantees,
and international economic leadership
over recent generations have been a
great success. It makes sense to prune
lesser commitments, but certainly not to
abandon Washington’s essential global
role. On the contrary, says Wertheim: it
is precisely the notion o American
primacy that needs to go. Instead o
policing the world with endless military
interventions, Washington should
withdraw from much o the greater
Middle East, rein in the “war on terror,”
rely on diplomacy instead o¤ force, and
concentrate its attention on trying to
steer the global economy toward fairer
and greener pastures.
COME HOME, AMERICA?