U.S. Foreign Policy: Where exit?

Communism and authoritarianism have failed, therefore, free markets and free elections are the answer to all questions. Market democracy, which so conveniently was promoted by globalization, was supposed to bring peace to the family of the productive, peaceful states. Instead, after the collapse of the Soviet Union was followed by numerous economic crises outside the West, the genocide in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, multiplying fundamentalism as poisonous anti-Americanism and, finally, the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Place neoliberalism took neoconservatism. The neoconservative doctrine was based on aggressive use of American military machine, with international approval or without it, and this war machine was used to eliminate certain regimes and the formation of other (which became known as the "nation-building"). If Sept. 11 put an end to neoliberalism, the nightmare in Iraq did the same with neo-conservatism. Then came the economic crisis of 2008, which was the final blow for both. Neoconservative power depended on the grand affordable wealth, with which it was possible to maintain American military power outside the United States. Neo-liberal economics assumes that American capitalism will create this wealth. Today, both she and the other doctrines have failed, but politicians do not know what to do. The recent avalanche of publications on foreign policy, trying to predict and create the next big movement. Among these researchers, only a very few are optimistic portend continued world dominance of America. Thus, the famous historian Niall Ferguson, author of "Rise of money," argues forcefully that write the U.S. off too early. In his essay, written earlier this year for the journal The American Interest, he wrote that American business does not just overcome the devastating economic crises with the help of technological innovation, citing the example of RCA, DuPont and IBM since the Great Depression, and Microsoft and Apple in 1970 -- ies. Ferguson also said that no matter how terrible the U.S. credit crisis has not seemed to be inside the country, its "economic impact abroad is much more powerful." George Friedman, founder of private research agency Stratfor and author of "The Next 100 Years" even more positive attitude towards the future of America. Dramatically, Friedman said that "the United States is far from decline and, in fact, only begun its ascent. Promoting his own, maybe old-fashioned point of view, Friedman wrote that the naval force is vital, even in the XXI century. Since the U.S. control and the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, they are "virtually guaranteed to world domination." But much more expert on U.S. foreign policy negatively related to trends in the United States. Perhaps the most probative work in this direction is sharp manifesto Andrew Bacevich "Milestones of power: the end of the American unusualness. Subjecting to severe criticism of American wastefulness and delusional belief in the military invincibility, Bacevich requires a foreign policy based on humility and realism. One of the most interesting arguments Bacevich is that the astronomical cost of war in Iraq - and not only unmanaged hedge funds and loans to unreliable borrowers - directly affected the financial collapse of 2008. He writes that by 2007, the U.S. command in Baghdad spent the $ 3 billion per week. In the same year, the total cost of the war in Iraq has surpassed $ 500 billion. Bacevich also criticized the Obama administration. He wrote that his national security team recruited from the "establishment of stereotyping. It considers a range of measures to stimulate the economy, Obama's proposals, as well as the readiness to send additional troops to Afghanistan, an ominous symptom of the ongoing "self-destructive behavior." And yet, despite such a different point of view, speaks volumes of the fact that all major thinkers actually offered to return to something past. Critics of the Bush and Cheney represent these eight years as an extraordinary deviation from the original American principles. Supporters of the Bush administration's present their new recommendations as meeting the earlier periods of prosperous American foreign policy. Colorful example is the neo-conservative Bush supporter Robert Kagan, now returning to the ideas of the Cold War. In his book "The Return of History and the end of dreams", he wrote that on the international arena "returned the competition between the great powers." As during the Cold War, the key opponents of the free world are Russia and China, while other states' increasingly stronger stand on one side and socialises themselves with one or the other camp. " Kagan openly nostalgic for the era of the Reagan administration. Criticizing similar Kagan neoconservative Bacevich also calls for the return of a Cold War strategy, but he speaks of "containment" strategy. Bacevich calls the U.S. "let Islam be Islam. As a result, Muslims find flaws of political Islam, as well as the Russian opened the shortcomings of Marxism-Leninism. " Similarly, allusions to the return conductors of the Cold War can be found in essays L. Gelb "Regulation of force: how common sense can save the American foreign policy." Gelb, formerly led by the Council on Foreign Relations, said that the policy of containment and deterrence little valued as an instrument of policy, although she has played the most significant role in the American victory in the Cold War. He argues that "deterrence helped in almost all cases, when heads of state used its clear and firm. So far as Bacevich and Gelb stressed the need of restraint from the United States, the other pushes his views on something like neovilsonovskoy policy: a return to multilateral relations, global partnerships and soft power. This theme is the main motive for such works as "Post-American World, F. Zakaria," The Great Experiment: the history of ancient empires, modern country and the search for world state "by S. Talbot, and" The Second World: As developing countries establish a new international competition in XXI century "P. Hanna. And what about the Obama administration? Richard Posner, whose latest book is called "The collapse of capitalism" is the current policy of "envy of Roosevelt." This may be some truth. As the White House Roosevelt, the Obama administration, it seems, seeks to immediately revive internationalism, to reconsider regulation of the economy and spend a lot of money to get out of the economic crisis. However, if any political bloc and is a reflection of the prevailing public opinion, it is likely to Neo-isolationism: a return to isolationism, a characteristic of American politics after the First World War when the U.S. refused to join the League of Nations. While intellectuals appeal to cosmopolitanism, more and more Americans are opposed to outsourcing, against foreign products, against immigration, against international law - and for protectionism. According to a Gallup poll conducted in February 2009, nearly half of Americans are foreign trade, the threat of the economy ", and 65% are convinced that the government" too much "spending on international support. Perhaps it is not so bad that almost nobody in the areas of foreign policy does not put forward anything new. Foreign policy - it is not modern dance, time-tested strategy here may be better than the avant-garde and innovation. However hard to believe that in today's world with its unprecedented threats and striking differences between the ideas of the elite and the broad public opinion, the American way forward means a return to the past.