Perhap realists are musicians too.. they are just rock musicians, who keep trying to increase the volume on their amp louder than the next person in the band.

There once was a skater named Tonya Harding, who figured that the only way to improve her chances in the Olympics was to cripple -- literally -- her competition. It turned out badly for her.

There once was a superpower who figured that the only way to retain its supremacy was to cripple the manufacturing potential of its chief competitor by seizing control of the world's oil resources. It therefore invaded Afghanistan in order to control strategic access to the Caspian sea petroleum reserves, and it invaded Iraq for the purpose of making sure that American oil interests could monopolize Iraq's oil industry. It turned out badly for that superpower.

That's the problem with trying to win, not on your own merits but rather, by destroying the competition -- a situation in which everyone loses.

At least, those who are or may be rival powers.

This is your view, Steve?

And how do you think this should be addressed for private universities, by law?

Taiwan (the republic of China) is one-third the land mass of Ohio and has a population over 20 million. It is deficient in many natural resources, and its farmland is interrupted by many mountains. Budgeting is serious business there, and some decades ago it was decided that admission to the nation's colleges would be in merit, and for locals. If your kid wasn't smart enough to get into college, there would be no make-good degree mills around to pretend that (s)he was. So strongly is this policed, my guide to the education system pointed out that "If you hear somebody speak about his son or daughter attending Harvard, Stanford or any other American college for a first degree, you know that the kid was too dumb to get into college in Taiwan, and the father is rich or influential enough to pay for second-best."

Heard 20 years ago. Still true?

Mr Walt's column today is prompted, although he might not be aware of this, by the reversing tide of Chinese expatriates. In olden days, five years or more ago, smart students from foreign lands arrived in the US for education and stayed to enjoy the fruits of a rich and high-paying nation. In other words, seduction. But now, many students from China sense that they will have better futures back home, and they want to take the US learning there to get one. Thit does not apply only to college graduates. Many Chinese who emigrated 10 and 20years ago to finds work (as shopkeepers, most of them) in English-speaking nations, are now being headhunted from back home. In today's economy, speaking putonghua and English, and understanding the western business mind are attractive qualities, worth real money.

Justifying not allowing Chinese students into American university systems due to a comparative advantage also seems to extend into xenophobia, which Realism may point out exists partially due to the security dilemma. Still, it seems this is an instance where discrimination is unfair. Students are not the government and they do not necessarily act on the behalf of the state. If the US truly wanted to keep up its own competitive advantage in education, it would focus on making our public schools better for its students instead of worrying about enforcing the borders. Plus, China is one of the most appealing countries for English-speakers to go to and teach English in because they are willing to import native-speaking English teachers and pay them well. I don't know how as a professor you can be okay with the idea of denying other students the possibility to learn due to some national security paranoia.

Having been someone who played sports and was in orchestra, I can say that I don't agree with this metaphor. Within an orchestra, you have members competing against each other to get the best seats. The conductor tries to insure everyone has a common goal or purpose, but everyone is still looking out for no. 1. In rock bands and pop bands and whatever other kinds of bands, group members have a lot of their own friction probably resulting from having several inflated egos in one shared space. Not to mention bands for the most part are competing with other bands for money, fame, fortune and whatever other perks exist. When I played softball, we were much more encouraging of each other. We did share tips on how to be better with each other and there is a reason sports analogies are more often used in team work. Both of these activities promote healthy competition, although they both have the potential to turn ugly. In any case, it seems like if the US wants to keep its power as a long-term interest, it would find a better way than putting up a giant "do not enter, we're afraid of you" sign.

If I didn't know better, I would say this little article of yours was designed to test the waters for a job as foreign policy advisor (which I would whole-heartedly support, by the way...)

Prof. Walt is nothing if not a long-term thinker who considers possible future outcomes of foreign policy. Higher education is currently one of several American competitive advantages vis a vis China. International relations are most influenced by the perceived self-interests of the nations involved, not idealistic principles. The reality is that nations compete, and giving away knowledge may be ultimately not in our self-interest. This is an empirical (testable by data) question, and someone should try to study it (if they haven't already). There may be things China would be willing to do that clearly ARE in America's interests in exchange for continued access to American higher education. Let's don't reject this possibility without further consideration and try to think both short and long term.

I don't know if Prof. Walt noticed, but most Chinese and Indian students who come to the US, and to Europe for that matter, train to become engineers and scientists. These are not the most popular subjects for American students to pursue in grad school. American science and engineering schools would suffer without the Asian students. So it would be a far better "long term" idea to hand out green cards with the Master's and PhD diplomas.

Maybe I am a little off topic, but here goes:

Is there a new piece of military music waiting in the wings? Combining the recent news of A), the Ababsiar plot, with B), the U.S. announcement that U.S. Forces in Iraq are going to leave Iraq by upcoming New Year, will the realism of this turn out to be the long expected Iran Campaign, in order to smash Iran's nuclear facilities and secure the situation for Israel's Likud Government?

IR is not like music, but it is not like sports either.

The music comparison is faulty, because if one musician gets better, the other musician does not necessarily gets worse, the whole orchestra can improve at the same time. This is not possible for the whole world because of the scarcity and disproportionate allocation of resources fueling growth. It is like if the musicians were handed different sizes of music sheets, the ones with bigger sheets had the advantage, they could get better at playing easier. In IR, the countries controlling the resources have at least indirect control over other countries using those resources, something musicians don't have.

The sports comparison is faulty, because in sports breaking the rules gets you disqualified. In IR, breaking the rules gives you benefits as long as someone stronger than you decides to intervene (WWII). If there is no stronger, you can break them at will (US nowadays). Another fault is that in sports you cannot actively thwart the development of a competitor, you are left to your own devices to outgrow them. In IR there are plenty of direct or indirect means to hinder an adversary's progress (smearing, embargoing, inciting dissent, war, etc.).

I sincerely don't know where Walt is getting to with this article. But I'm sure he wants to tell us something and wait eagerly for the follow up.

Phillip Bobbitt's "The Shield of Achilles" give some precise descriptions of your intuitions. He characterizes them as different ways that countries will attempt to dominate the post-Cold War world.

Japan, and now China, follow a mercantile strategy, where they struggle to gain more goods and power relative to other countries. These are Walt's realists and jocks.

The United States follows an entrepreneurial strategy, where they struggle to increase the size of the pie -- to provide more goods for everyone. There are Walt's liberals and musicians.

Europe follows an managerial strategy, that seeks to both increase the size of the pie and get more of it for themselves.

"The Shield of Achilles" is a magisterial treatment of these deep strategies, especially of how law and strategy interact to create state legitimacy. It is much more penetrating than Walt's intuitions.

So realists are athletes, and liberals are musicians...what are constructivists?

Meant to say, "constructivists"

A nation’s educational system is a resource. Security and prosperity encourage generosity, insecurity discourages it.

You have a funny dichotomy but I offer another reason to have all the best Chinese students we can get to come to America. Make China's best and brightest either American, or increase their sympathy with us. Let's go out there and steal all we can!

At least if we welcome foreigners into our universities, we can benefit from their knowledge and experiences while passing along to them ours, a point that Walt oddly fails entirely to consider.

The real problems begin when a company like, oh, let's say GE, moves its operations from the US to China in order to record a slight uptick in profits for its next quarterly earnings report and nudge the stock a few points higher. It begins to manufacture a product which cannibalized years, if not decades, of research and untold billions of dollars. From the lowest assembly line worker to the highest manager, each worker is foreign. In the span of a year, GE has passed along trade secrets and know-how that took a generation to master itself. Why would a company be so myopic? Because the CEO will look like a genius for cutting costs and golden parachute himself out of there as soon as his folly is uncovered and recognized. Multiply this example by however many MNCs have moved production and manufacturing eastward, and it becomes easy to see a pattern that will become very problematic for the US in the not-too-distant future

Liberals' mantra is that you will be assimilated. If you want to compete with the west you have to become the west (liberal). Let the Chinese students voluntarily step into the great assimilation chambers that are the US universities. They will head back to China as liberals and continue to assimilate their countrymen to the glory of western liberal thought. Once liberals they will understand that they can make more money pursuing liberal thoughts than realists thoughts. It is inevitable (as long as we don't destroy the planet or run out of vital resources in the meantime and then it's scurry back to the realists model). Have faith my friends. All hail to the individual.

power talking may be more realistic. the point however is to think power in an up-to-date fashion, as what constitute power do change. like what is more powerful, box cutters or A-bombs?