It will be most interesting to see whether the Israel Lobby's influence will continue in the face of increasing US fiscal and economic realism. Prof. Walt strikes a hopeful tone and I hope his optimism is justified. It seems very likely to me that the Lobby will continue to push for continued and substantial financial/military support for Israel even though that is not in the best interests of the US. To do so may ultimately result in tremendous backlash against the Israelis (and perhaps, diasporan Jews, which would be most unfortunate). Maybe the indentured servants who now populate our congress will get religion when faced with a choice between siding with Israel politically/financially and saving the US from economic disaster.

For those who remember the history of Soviet Union, this is a deja vu. The US mirrors SU in so many respects (well, the Israeli lobbi is an exception), and I don't see many chances that they would not follow the same road.

Therefore the Council on Foreign Relations suggests the G20 next month will achieve little in maintaining, let alone improving global public goods? So much for hopes of keeping the thinking behind the UN multilateral system.

Good question: factor the I-P conflict out of the equation and how does our FP look? We have significantly protected ourselves against a cut-off of middle eastern oil by the war in Iraq and military presence in Saudi Arabia. But what else is to like? Afghanistan is a disaster worsening by the day. We have a significant military presence in Japan and Korea which does not appear to be needed. Relations with Cuba are still strained (thanks to the Cuban-American lobby). We have out-spent our resources and are now heavily in debt, while our primary and secondary schools need expensive overhaul in order for us to not fall further behind our overseas competitors. Since money is now seriously limited, it does not seem possible fo the US to be successful in both the domestic and foreign arenas so long as the latter pursues what I and others consider a path of reckless military adventurism. This is also Prof. Walt's point, as I understand him here and elsewhere on this blog.

I thought the point Walt was making was that foreign policy is finally starting to be carefully scrutinized, precisely because of the tremendous financial challenges now facing us on both the FP and domestic fronts. When the average citizen sees his Social Security and Medicare benefits slashed, together perhaps with his retirement benefits, as well as tax increases,there's going to be a great deal of examining of our worldview going on--I guarantee it.

In the initial stages these overseas activities are not only self-supporting but profitable. Later, when there are no longer new revenues to be garnered, they become paid for with commercial surpluses. When the surpluses run dry they can briefly be maintained on credit but ultimately they have to stop. It happened with Rome bankrupted by its legions, and Britain bankrupted by WWII. In this sense change is inevitable but it is the convictions of cultural superiority and moral responsibility that are hardest to renounce.

I recall an apocryphal story of a Englishman arriving in New York after the war and being baffled by immigration signs with arrows indicating ‘US Citizens’ in one direction and ‘Foreign Visitors’ in another. But where, he is supposed to have inquired, do the British go?

Getting the US back to fiscal sanity is going to require some spending cuts. It is well known that US Military expenditures account for an extremely large portion of the Federal budget. It is also well known, that it is taboo to talk about cutting any defense spending in American politics. However, the reality is, that if America is to remain the world's shining "city on a hill," then she must take in some of the defense spending. Once the escalation of the war in Afghanistan is able to be reversed, and expenses for that war decrease, this will allow some flexibility in being able to cut military spending. However, spending must be cut wisely. Why? We live in a post-9/11 world, threats to US security are very real.

i do think that change is far away.i believe that no matter who we have for a president our hopes for a new begging and for the country to change is just lost hopes. We are scare no matter anyone says because if our troops leaves Afghanistan people worry that this conflict will come to our country, making this situation even more scary. what is there to really do i have absolutely no idea and i also think the government has no idea either no matter what they be telling us.

"When experienced insiders like Gelb, Haass, and Altman are moving in that direction, it's a sign that reality is starting to catch up with the "pay any price and bear any burden" world-view that has distorted U.S. foreign policy for decades. "

They may be 'insiders' but these are not smart people.
They didn't foresee this?
A lot of other people did and said so time after time..

Look at what passes for leaders (politicans) and intellectuals these days.
You think these people have the gift of foresight or are competent enough to effect any change?

Nope. Things will change only when that limb they have put us all out on breaks.

In essence the U.S. strategy remains the same as the previous strategy but the language is softened and fundamental approach is more restrained with a heavy emphasis on partnership and reliance from the international community and institutions. This international outreach is a combination of Realism and Liberalism theories and heavily favoring Liberalism principles.

The current Strategy is steeped in Liberalism with a touch of Realism. The three elements of Realism theory are that that it is actor centric and nation states are the major actors, continuity that exists from the previous strategy, and reliance on international systems. The views of Liberalism theory that are represented by this strategy are numerous. The focus on states, international organizations and norms are a hallmark of this strategy and the partnered approach to problem solving is pragmatic. Trade / business and the interdependent relationship and social cooperation are cornerstones. With the acceptance that “power in an interconnected world, is no longer a zero sum game” as stated in the 2010 National Security Strategy, the belief of win-win is possible and accepted. The focus on changing political systems and fostering and sponsoring democracies is another strong component of Liberalism theory and the NSS is a strong vehicle for the promotion of democracies and democratic principles especially in places like Pakistan, Middle East, Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and in African nations.

Economic power drives the national engine and it is unsustainable if our debt continues to rise. The vision to control the long term debt will create long term economic security domestically as well as internationally. The global economy is interdependent on American economy and therefore international stability comes from American stability. Also the economic focus of moving from the G-8 to the more inclusive G-20 increases international and regional responsibility which in turn provides for those nations to promote interests. The active balance of responsibility and interests and additional responsibility of the G-20 also means additional support and financial backing of those nations through the IMF, World Bank and nation to nation assistance and regional growth and leadership which eases the burden on the U.S. economic engine. The international participation and increase in trades and interdependence will ultimately have a positive impact on economic health. The economic growth is tied directly with emerging powers of the BRIC nations, Brazil, Russia, India, and China and some nations from Latin America, Africa, and Pacific region. The economic interactions are one good example of the engagement policy.

In the end, how we manage our affairs will have a direct impact on the world. As the world hegemon, it is wise to have economic balance and have a balanced approach to foreign policy.

The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurred on August 6 and 9 1945, in spite of the fact that Japan had signaled her willingness to capitulate some weeks previously (Robert Junck Brighter than a Thousand Suns (1958) pp. 189-191, Martin J Sherwin A World Destroyed (1975) pp. 235-237).

To summarize the sequence of the important dates concerning the atomic bombing:

# Mid-July 1945: Japanese government communicates to US government their willingness to negotiate capitulation;
# August 6 1945: US drops atom bomb on Hiroshima;
# August 8 1945: US signs the 'London Charter', or Charter of the International Military Tribunal defining war crimes, including Principle 6 (b) ‘wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.’
# August 9 1945: US drops atom bomb on Nagasaki.

With reference to the atomic bomb, Admiral William Leahy - Chief of Staff to both Roosevelt and Truman - commented, 'My own feeling was that, in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Age. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.' (Liddell Hart, History of the Second World War (1970) p725-6, JFC Fuller, The Decisive Battles of the Western World, 1792-1945 (1970) p584).

It’s now official – there’s been no actual shortage of Holocaust Survivors:

Quote from The Holocaust Industry by Norman G. Finkelstein of the City University of New York, published by Verso in the year 2000:

'The Israeli Prime Minister's office recently put the number of "living Holocaust survivors" at nearly a million.' (page 83)