This is thoughtful but disagree strongly w/ it. This is basically a classic realist piece masquerading as a progressive Dem alternative. Kissinger c/d've written this. 1/ theatlantic.com/amp/article/57…
It sets up a strawman. US pursues "unipolarity". No, US after CW tried to create a liberal order; supported rising powers like India and EU. Brought Russia/China into WTO. US force presence isn't to keep others down. It's to maintain liberal order - freedom of navig, etc. 2/
We're more than happy for others to share the burden. Hence every POTUS has pestered Europe to do more on defense. 3/
But we also recognize that our alliance systems have been extremely successful. And made us and the liberal order much more stable. 4/
But Beinart views our alliance commitments as checks we can't cash. So in his view just abandon them - give up on Taiwan! Give Ukraine to Russia! But... why? 5/
This isn't the 19th century. We don't want a world where powerful states can gobble up small ones. Perhaps that's just a "domino theory" argument, but it is also a principle, which has helped dramatically reduce inter-state wars. The US has ability to deter conflict. 6/
The issue isn't that China and Russia pose a threat to US hegemony and "unipolarity." It's that they pose a threat to the advance of a liberal world order. Their rise has the potential to make the world less safe for democrac
In response, we s/d pursue a foreign policy that aligns w/ our democratic values, build and strengthen partnerships with democracies, bolsters nascent democracies, and prove the democratic model is better.
Read our new report at CAP outlining a values based Foreign Policy. Spoiler: you can push to uphold democracy and human rights w/o wanting to invade everywhere.
americanprogress.org/issues/securit…
americanprogress.org/issues/securit…
