What do you think?
Rate this book
From Containment to Global Leadership: America and the World After the Cold War
With its victory in the Cold War, the United States is now the world's preeminent military and political power. Three years after the end of the Cold War, however, no new grand design has yet jelled, and this failure carries large opportunity costs.
60 pages, Paperback
First published January 25, 1995
1 person is currently reading
9 people want to read
About the author
Zalmay Khalilzad
25 books24 followersFrom 2007 to 2009, Amb. Khalilzad served as U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Prior to that, he served as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (2005-2007) and U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan (2003 to 2005). He also served as U.S. Special Presidential Envoy to Afghanistan (2001 to 2003).
Amb. Khalilzad sits on the boards of the National Endowment for Democracy, America Abroad Media, the RAND Corporation’s Middle East Studies Center, the American University of Iraq in Suleymania, and the American University of Afghanistan. He is also a counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Amb. Khalilzad earned his B.A. and M.A. degrees from the American University of Beirut, as well as a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago.
Amb. Khalilzad sits on the boards of the National Endowment for Democracy, America Abroad Media, the RAND Corporation’s Middle East Studies Center, the American University of Iraq in Suleymania, and the American University of Afghanistan. He is also a counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Amb. Khalilzad earned his B.A. and M.A. degrees from the American University of Beirut, as well as a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
April 28, 2020
Brian Lamb: What is Neoconservatism?
Refers to a constellation of opinions and views that, is not traditionally conservative but is conservative, and its certainly not liberal – Irving Kristol
If you starting to study or want to know more in depth what is Neoconservatism, you’ll very likely will be pointed to this essay. It’s guaranteed to be way more useful than the description above, given by the Godfather of Neoconservatism, Irving Kristol.
Regardless of my position to the narrative in these pages, I confess myself fascinated.
Neoconservatism had its genesis by the 1960’s, officially at least, but a seed was planted in 1995 by think tanks like RAND and CFR, evolving among others. After the loss of Soviet Union supremacy at the end of the Cold War, resulting in American victory, the United States had to be encouraged to step up. There was a gap in the empire slot, and communism was out of the table. It was argued the country lacked vision, battling disastrous wars in the Gulf and Iraq, that brought more costs than significant change. For example, Saddam Hussein, remained in power and regional opposition was all but abandoned.
Neonconservatives allegedly infiltrated various parts of the Administration and Military, including Congress and Pentagon. Their premise was to encourage changes in social policies and productivity to appeal this new model, otherwise a greater other one might emerge and appeal, be adopted, and challenge the USA. It would work wonders with bipartisan support, which pretty much had. This new vision had to rally Washington to take action. George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton “played with it”, due to Russian influence in the Middle East, but its moment was yet to come.
After September 11 of 2001- the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center – its moment arrived.
George W. Bush virtually pulled out this skeleton and established what is known today as the Bush Doctrine.
The key trait of Neoconservatism can be summed in one word: Intervention.
In a few more words, it advocates the use of force and preemptive war (if necessary) to preserve the global hegemony of the USA.
There were other options to be considered but not encouraged:
Neoisolationism – turn away from foreign hegemony, facing domestic problems instead. America First.
Pre World War Multipolarity – Compete and cooperate to avoid hegemony and global war.
Maintain Global Leadership, precluding the rise of another global rival and multipolarity – Intervention Doctrine. A World in which the United States exercises leadership would be more peaceful and more open to values of liberal democracy, free markets, and rule of law.
It would create US led coalitions, demanding military contributions from NATO and use its members to its advantage, helping to establish the hegemony.
Of course, today this raises many concerns. At the time and even now, most Republicans and Democrats seem to reject isolationism. The document itself rejects one such as the 1920 and 1930. However, both Obama and Trump been deciding to operate on Containment, using a softer power and work with intelligence instead of force. Remember how the Kurds were abandoned and peace talks with Taliban continued, for example.
Still, soldiers abroad seem to be way cheaper to maintain than on the nation’s soil. Subsidiaries are cheaper on the US side that way, so there has to be a compromise.
The essay also highlights what the US would have to gain and why its important not just for the nation, but the world. The United States should be willing to use force to prevent hegemony over Critical Regions, like East Asia and Europe, and Persian Gulf, which is important for its oil supply. The fight against Russian Reimperialization and Chinese Expansionism must continue, while cooperating with both. In short, fight communism and give incentives to accept the economic imperative of the global economy: capitalism. China has accepted this imperative (though not so in the politics, which remain both communist and totalitarian), and so did Russia (which some call “Gangsta Capitalism” due to its oligarch nature), but there’s still miles to go in the democratization of these two countries and others on their own “sphere of influence”.
The document argues prosperous democracies are more likely to cooperate with the United States of America and less likely to threaten its interests. This was used at its fullest even during the Cold War. When President Reagan negotiated with Mikhail Gorbachev, the surrounding countries were also in a process of becoming independent from Soviet Union. But to be independent they had to be USA friendly, and that’s literally what happened since then, eg. though Kosovo War and interventions in Lybia.
Having threats gives the United States a goal. It guides them. Guides American policy, military capabilities and investment, modernization and intelligence operations. Opens opportunities for arming and training of victims, provide technical assistance and logistic support for peacekeeping by the UN, regional organizations or other powers; sanctions and positive incentives and, of course, diplomacy.
Sometimes its better to ask for forgiveness than permission, and makes it even better if you’re able to fight a bully without becoming one.
Conclusion
Things don’t just happen. There’s history in everything. The Bush Doctrine led to eight years of intervention and shaping of foreign policy and influence. The 2008 housing crisis brought enough insecurity to dismantle the confidence in the Washington Consensus, bringing about the rise of populism in 2016. America eventually had to come first once again. In a way this is bad, because without a Western major power like the Unites States, other less democratized countries take advantage to gain influence. On the other hand, it teaches us Europeans a lesson and forces them to step up. Trump Administration is right to question NATO’s use, considering most times it acted, it did not even trigger Article 5. Coronavirus tells a history of how reliant we are from Chinese production and Russian oil.
If you feel the United States should keep acting as the World’s Police, you will enjoy this essay and maybe even embrace the Neoconservative ideal. Otherwise, From Containment to Global Leadership, by Zalmay Khalizad will offer you some clarity and its a great addition to academic literature.
Refers to a constellation of opinions and views that, is not traditionally conservative but is conservative, and its certainly not liberal – Irving Kristol
If you starting to study or want to know more in depth what is Neoconservatism, you’ll very likely will be pointed to this essay. It’s guaranteed to be way more useful than the description above, given by the Godfather of Neoconservatism, Irving Kristol.
Regardless of my position to the narrative in these pages, I confess myself fascinated.
Neoconservatism had its genesis by the 1960’s, officially at least, but a seed was planted in 1995 by think tanks like RAND and CFR, evolving among others. After the loss of Soviet Union supremacy at the end of the Cold War, resulting in American victory, the United States had to be encouraged to step up. There was a gap in the empire slot, and communism was out of the table. It was argued the country lacked vision, battling disastrous wars in the Gulf and Iraq, that brought more costs than significant change. For example, Saddam Hussein, remained in power and regional opposition was all but abandoned.
Neonconservatives allegedly infiltrated various parts of the Administration and Military, including Congress and Pentagon. Their premise was to encourage changes in social policies and productivity to appeal this new model, otherwise a greater other one might emerge and appeal, be adopted, and challenge the USA. It would work wonders with bipartisan support, which pretty much had. This new vision had to rally Washington to take action. George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton “played with it”, due to Russian influence in the Middle East, but its moment was yet to come.
After September 11 of 2001- the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center – its moment arrived.
George W. Bush virtually pulled out this skeleton and established what is known today as the Bush Doctrine.
The key trait of Neoconservatism can be summed in one word: Intervention.
In a few more words, it advocates the use of force and preemptive war (if necessary) to preserve the global hegemony of the USA.
There were other options to be considered but not encouraged:
Neoisolationism – turn away from foreign hegemony, facing domestic problems instead. America First.
Pre World War Multipolarity – Compete and cooperate to avoid hegemony and global war.
Maintain Global Leadership, precluding the rise of another global rival and multipolarity – Intervention Doctrine. A World in which the United States exercises leadership would be more peaceful and more open to values of liberal democracy, free markets, and rule of law.
It would create US led coalitions, demanding military contributions from NATO and use its members to its advantage, helping to establish the hegemony.
Of course, today this raises many concerns. At the time and even now, most Republicans and Democrats seem to reject isolationism. The document itself rejects one such as the 1920 and 1930. However, both Obama and Trump been deciding to operate on Containment, using a softer power and work with intelligence instead of force. Remember how the Kurds were abandoned and peace talks with Taliban continued, for example.
Still, soldiers abroad seem to be way cheaper to maintain than on the nation’s soil. Subsidiaries are cheaper on the US side that way, so there has to be a compromise.
The essay also highlights what the US would have to gain and why its important not just for the nation, but the world. The United States should be willing to use force to prevent hegemony over Critical Regions, like East Asia and Europe, and Persian Gulf, which is important for its oil supply. The fight against Russian Reimperialization and Chinese Expansionism must continue, while cooperating with both. In short, fight communism and give incentives to accept the economic imperative of the global economy: capitalism. China has accepted this imperative (though not so in the politics, which remain both communist and totalitarian), and so did Russia (which some call “Gangsta Capitalism” due to its oligarch nature), but there’s still miles to go in the democratization of these two countries and others on their own “sphere of influence”.
The document argues prosperous democracies are more likely to cooperate with the United States of America and less likely to threaten its interests. This was used at its fullest even during the Cold War. When President Reagan negotiated with Mikhail Gorbachev, the surrounding countries were also in a process of becoming independent from Soviet Union. But to be independent they had to be USA friendly, and that’s literally what happened since then, eg. though Kosovo War and interventions in Lybia.
Having threats gives the United States a goal. It guides them. Guides American policy, military capabilities and investment, modernization and intelligence operations. Opens opportunities for arming and training of victims, provide technical assistance and logistic support for peacekeeping by the UN, regional organizations or other powers; sanctions and positive incentives and, of course, diplomacy.
Sometimes its better to ask for forgiveness than permission, and makes it even better if you’re able to fight a bully without becoming one.
Conclusion
Things don’t just happen. There’s history in everything. The Bush Doctrine led to eight years of intervention and shaping of foreign policy and influence. The 2008 housing crisis brought enough insecurity to dismantle the confidence in the Washington Consensus, bringing about the rise of populism in 2016. America eventually had to come first once again. In a way this is bad, because without a Western major power like the Unites States, other less democratized countries take advantage to gain influence. On the other hand, it teaches us Europeans a lesson and forces them to step up. Trump Administration is right to question NATO’s use, considering most times it acted, it did not even trigger Article 5. Coronavirus tells a history of how reliant we are from Chinese production and Russian oil.
If you feel the United States should keep acting as the World’s Police, you will enjoy this essay and maybe even embrace the Neoconservative ideal. Otherwise, From Containment to Global Leadership, by Zalmay Khalizad will offer you some clarity and its a great addition to academic literature.
Displaying 1 of 1 review