Missing from much of the public debate is discussion of the simple fact that lurking behind every terroristic act is a specific political antecedent. That does not justify either the perpetrator or his political cause. Nonetheless, the fact is that almost all terrorist activity originates from some political conflict and is sustained by it as well.
— Zbigniew Brzezinski
Waging a colonial war in the post-colonial age is self-defeating.
Can we really mobilize support, even of friends, when we tell them that if you are not with us you are against us?
Peace between Israel and Palestine would be a giant step toward greater regional stability, and it would finally let both Israelis and Palestinians benefit from the Middle East's growing wealth.
Pessimism about America's future tends to underestimate its capacity for self-renewal.
America's victory in the Cold War was not without painful social costs.
The external Soviet empire lasted 45 years. It is shattered, beyond redemption or repair.
A waning United States would likely be more nationalistic, more defensive about its national identity, more paranoid about its homeland security, and less willing to sacrifice resources for the sake of others' development.
The potential for regional conflict in the absence of an internationally active America is real.
The costly unilateralism of the younger Bush presidency led to a decade of war in the Middle East and the derailment of American foreign policy at large.
Only a dynamic and strategically-minded America, together with a unifying Europe, can jointly promote a larger and more vital West, one capable of acting as a responsible partner to the rising and increasingly assertive East.
Because America is a democracy, public support for presidential foreign-policy decisions is essential.
The first 'world' war was in reality the last European war fought by globally significant European powers.
All the historical pretenders to global power originated in Eurasia.
To his credit, Obama has undertaken a truly ambitious effort to redefine the United States' view of the world and to reconnect the United States with the emerging historical context of the twenty-first century. He has done this remarkably well.
Both World War II and the subsequent Cold War gave America's involvement in world affairs a clear focus. The objectives of foreign policy were relatively easy to define, and they could be imbued with high moral content.
Human affairs require some combination of moral commitment with disciplined political action. And that is what keeps me intrigued and challenged and wanting to influence events.
The public has been told repeatedly that terrorism is 'evil,' which it undoubtedly is, and that 'evildoers' are responsible for it, which doubtless they are. But beyond these justifiable condemnations, there is a historical void.
The United States should not engage in tit-for-tat polemics directed at its most important allies. That is as demeaning as it is destructive.
It is important to ask ourselves, as citizens, whether a world power can provide global leadership on the basis of fear and anxiety.
It is in the U.S. interest to engage Iran in serious negotiations - on both regional security and the nuclear challenge it poses.
One-sided national economic triumphs cannot be achieved in the increasingly interwoven global economy without precipitating calamitous consequences for everyone.
War triggers unforeseeable military dynamics and sets off massive political shocks, creating new problems as well as new opportunities.
Anniversaries are like birthdays: occasions to celebrate and to think ahead, usually among friends with whom one shares not only the past but also the future.
America's decline would set in motion tectonic shifts undermining the political stability of the entire Middle East.
With the decline of America's global preeminence, weaker countries will be more susceptible to the assertive influence of major regional powers.
The culture of self-gratification and deregulation that began during the Clinton years and continued under President George W. Bush led to the bursting of one stock market bubble at the turn of the century and a full-scale financial crash less than a decade later.
Commitment and credibility go hand in hand.
The congressional role in declaring war is especially important not when the United States is the victim of an attack, but when the United States is planning to wage war abroad.
The Cold War did end in the victory of one side and in the defeat of the other. This reality cannot be denied, despite the understandable sensitivities that such a conclusion provokes among the tenderhearted in the West and some of the former leaders of the defeated side.
Eurasia is home to most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states.
Americans must place greater emphasis on the more subtle dimensions of national power, such as innovation, education, the balance of force and diplomacy, and the quality of political leadership.
During the twentieth century, men fought on behalf of nationalism. Yet the wars they fought were also engendered by dislocations in world markets and by social revolution stimulated by the coming of the industrial age.
Economically, we are, to some significant degree, interdependent with Chinese well-being. That is a great asset.
Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president.
Democrats should insist that a pluralistic democracy such as ours rely on bipartisanship in formulating a foreign policy based on moderation and the nuances of the human condition.
War on terrorism reflects, in my view, a rather narrow and extremist vision of foreign policy for a superpower and for a great democracy with genuinely idealistic traditions.
Japan needs the American market and it also needs American security protection. Japan also needs America as the necessary stabilizer of an orderly world system with economies truly open to international trade.
I was deeply involved in the decision that President Jimmy Carter made to boycott the Olympics in Moscow in 1980.
Given the accelerating velocity of history, we should begin charting deliberately the next phase in its trajectory.
The worsening of relations between a declining America and an internally troubled Mexico could even give rise to a particularly ominous phenomenon: the emergence, as a major issue in nationalistically aroused Mexican politics, of territorial claims justified by history and ignited by cross-border incidents.
Pakistan's political instability is its greatest vulnerability, and a decline in U.S. power would reduce America's ability to aid Pakistan's consolidation and development.
As America's nuclear strategic monopoly faded, the United States sought to create advantages elsewhere, notably in the peaceful cooperation between the United States and communist China under Deng Xiaoping.
The financial catastrophe of 2008 nearly precipitated a calamitous economic depression, jolting America and much of the West into a sudden recognition of their systemic vulnerability to unregulated greed.
A president who aspires to be recognized as a global leader should not personally stake out a foreign-policy goal, commit himself eloquently to its attainment, and then yield the ground when confronted by firm opposition.
The future is inherently full of discontinuities, and lessons of the past must be applied with enormous caution.
It is axiomatic that the security of America and Europe are linked.
World War II and the ensuing Cold War compelled the United States to develop a sustained commitment to Western Europe and the Far East.
If the United States and China can accommodate each other on a broad range of issues, the prospects for stability in Asia will be greatly increased.
During the nineteenth century, men died believing in the cause of royalty or republicanism. In reality, much of their sacrifice was rendered on the altar of the new nationalism.
