Russia’s leaders would not have felt as threatened, would not have fought Georgia or seized Crimea, and would have had little or no reason to interfere in the U.S. Over time, it could have gradually drawn down its military presence and turned European security back over to the Europeans. In Europe, the United States could have resisted the siren song of NATO expansion and stuck with the original “Partnership for Peace,” a set of security arrangements that included Russia. But many of them would have been less likely or less pronounced had the United States chosen a different path.
Democracy is in retreat worldwide, violent extremists are active in more places, the European Union is wobbling, and the uneven benefits of globalization have produced a powerful backlash against the liberal economic order that the United States had actively promoted.Īll of these trends were well underway long before Trump became president. North Korea, India, and Pakistan have all tested nuclear weapons and expanded their nuclear stockpiles, while Iran has gone from zero enrichment capacity in 1993 to being nearly a nuclear weapons state today. Hopes for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians have been dashed, and the rest of the Middle East is as divided as it has ever been. Relations with Russia and China today are worse than at any time since the Cold War, and the two Asian giants are once again colluding against us. By 2016, in fact, America was formally committed to defending more foreign countries than at any time in the nation’s history.Īmerica’s leaders may have had the best of intentions, but the strategy they pursued was mostly a failure. Convinced that the winds of progress were at their back and enamored of an image of America as the world’s “indispensable nation,” they set about using American power to topple dictators, spread democracy, sanction so-called rogue states, and bring as many countries as possible into security institutions led by the United States. Instead, both Democrats and Republicans quickly united behind an ambitious strategy of “liberal hegemony,” which sought to spread liberal values far and wide. This sensible alternative was barely discussed in official circles, however. Making the “American dream” more real here at home would also have shown other nations why the values of liberty, democracy, open markets, and the rule of law were worth emulating. These moves would have forced our wealthiest allies to take on greater responsibility for local problems while the United States addressed pressing domestic needs.
Rejecting isolationism, Washington could nonetheless have gradually disengaged from those areas that no longer needed significant American protection and reduced its global military footprint, while remaining ready to act in a few key areas should it become absolutely necessary. Think back a quarter century, to the beginning of the “unipolar moment.” Having triumphed over the Soviet Union, the United States could have given itself a high-five, taken a victory lap, and adopted a grand strategy better suited to a world without a superpower rival. Indeed, the seeds of our present troubles were sown long before Trump entered the political arena, and are in good part due to foreign-policy decisions made by the administrations of former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W.
But it is a mistake to see him as the sole-or even the most important-cause of the travails now convulsing the U.S.-led order. There is no question that Trump places little value in democracy, human rights, the rule of law, or other classic liberal values, and he seems to have a particular disregard for America’s democratic partners and a soft spot for autocrats. If only Hillary Clinton had become president, some believe, the United States would have remained the “indispensable nation” guiding the world toward a more benign future, and the familiar elements of a rules-based order would be thriving (or at least intact). President Donald Trump poses a particular threat to the U.S.-led, rules-based order that has supposedly been in place since 1945. If there is a consensus among these various commentators, however, it is that U.S. Some writers question whether a liberal order ever existed or challenge its alleged virtues, while others are quick to defend its past achievements and bemoan its potential demise. A recurring theme of foreign-policy commentary since 2016 has been the prior status and uncertain future of the so-called liberal order.