Derek Chollet and James Goldgeier: Kennan Had a Vision. Things Aren't So Clear Now.
[Derek Chollet is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. James Goldgeier is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a professor at George Washington University. They are co-authors of "America Between the Wars: From 11/9 to 9/11."]
James Monroe had one, and so should we.
That seems to be the theory behind the rampant and premature speculation among national security wonks about what kind of new doctrine President Obama or President McCain would use to guide U.S. foreign policy. But let's not get carried away thinking about what a McCain or Obama doctrine might be. In today's complex world, a president doesn't need to have a one-size-fits-all template for handling foreign affairs. In fact, the next president would be better off without one.
During the Cold War, Americans grew accustomed to presidents having big, broad doctrines to organize their thinking. Sometimes these were tailored to particular places, such as Jimmy Carter's vow to protect U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf, by force if necessary, after the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Other doctrines were more sweeping, such as Harry S. Truman's determination to support free peoples against communist usurpers or Ronald Reagan's pledge to assist anticommunist insurgencies worldwide. All these principles were proclaimed within the context of Washington's overarching Cold War strategy to contain Soviet communism, famously articulated in 1947 by the legendary diplomat George F. Kennan.
Over the almost 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, foreign policy experts have all aspired to be the next Kennan. But that communal nostalgia for the supposed simplicity of the Cold War and elegance of Kennan's containment doctrine is misplaced. A single template was one thing during the long twilight struggle against a single heavyweight rival. But since the collapse of communism, the effort to impose one grand theory on global politics has proven deeply frustrating -- and foolish...
Read entire article at Washington Post
James Monroe had one, and so should we.
That seems to be the theory behind the rampant and premature speculation among national security wonks about what kind of new doctrine President Obama or President McCain would use to guide U.S. foreign policy. But let's not get carried away thinking about what a McCain or Obama doctrine might be. In today's complex world, a president doesn't need to have a one-size-fits-all template for handling foreign affairs. In fact, the next president would be better off without one.
During the Cold War, Americans grew accustomed to presidents having big, broad doctrines to organize their thinking. Sometimes these were tailored to particular places, such as Jimmy Carter's vow to protect U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf, by force if necessary, after the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Other doctrines were more sweeping, such as Harry S. Truman's determination to support free peoples against communist usurpers or Ronald Reagan's pledge to assist anticommunist insurgencies worldwide. All these principles were proclaimed within the context of Washington's overarching Cold War strategy to contain Soviet communism, famously articulated in 1947 by the legendary diplomat George F. Kennan.
Over the almost 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, foreign policy experts have all aspired to be the next Kennan. But that communal nostalgia for the supposed simplicity of the Cold War and elegance of Kennan's containment doctrine is misplaced. A single template was one thing during the long twilight struggle against a single heavyweight rival. But since the collapse of communism, the effort to impose one grand theory on global politics has proven deeply frustrating -- and foolish...