Daniel W. Drezner

On American power and American foreign policy

On American power and American foreign policy

Your humble blogger continues to enjoy his family vacation immensely — especially since Phase One has ended and Phase Two does not require anything to do with the House of Mouse. 

Today’s topic is U.S. foreign policy in the age of Obama. Here’s what’s worth reading:

1) Richard Neu, "U.S. ‘Soft Power’ Abroad is Losing Its Punch." RAND. My take: When he writes "The most potent instrument of U.S. soft power is probably the simple size of the U.S. economy," I get the sense that Neu doesn’t entirely get what "soft power" means. And the whole "U.S. debt is sapping perceptions of U.S. power" shtick sounds very 2009. Still, as a read of the conventional wisdom of American thought on this issue, it’s a good precis. 

2) Tom Wright, "Neocons vs. Realists is so 2008," Foreign PolicyMy take:  Wright accurately describes "restrainers" and "shapers" but misses the bureaucratic impuleses for different actors to adopt these positions. Secretaries of state tend to be "shapers" — otherwise, why would they take the job? Meanwhile, Secretaries of defense tend to be "restrainers." They’re leery of any non-essential engagement that would potentially require the use of force — because that could put the military in harm’s way. The principal exception to this rule during the post-Cold War era was Don Rumsfeld, and even he wanted U.S. troops to get the hell out of Iraq five minutes after Saddam’s statue fell. 

3) Roger Cohen, "Beltway Foreign Policy," New York Times. My take:  On the one hand — oh, does my former Fletcher colleague and now SAIS Dean Vali Nasr knows how to tease his forthcoming book. I can only hope that, should I be in a similar position, Roger Cohen should need some column filler. On the other hand, it’s not a real shock to learn that the Obama White House made serious efforts to constrain Richard Holbrooke/run foreign policy. Going from there to asserting that "American foreign policy has become completely subservient to tactical domestic political considerations" seems a bit of a leap. Mind you, it’s still a refreshing and bracing critique that’s worth reading.