The following comment explains why nations, given their relative weakness, choose to pursue a nuclear arms program regardless of US demands. However, how does it explain their aggressive response in other scenarios where non-nuclear interests are at stake? In such cases, why risk war and/or respond militarily with the American 'behemoth'.

'They know that the United States has the wherewithal to take them down if it so decides, so they are unlikely to accept any U.S. demands (to abandon a nuclear program, for example) that would leave them in a position of even greater weakness. This is what explains U.S. involvement in so many "hot" wars since the Cold War ended.'

"They know that the United States has the wherewithal to take them down if it so decides, so they are unlikely to accept any U.S. demands (to abandon a nuclear program, for example) that would leave them in a position of even greater weakness."

But the thing is we really don't really have that ability except in the most general sense.

There are certain things which are generally off the table when it comes to how the US acts against most hostile nations.
-Nuclear weapons will never be employed by the US except as a response to similar use of a WMD.
-Terror bombing of a population won't be employed.
-Indiscriminate bombing of industrial infrastructure probably won't be used.

The US may have the most superior navy and air force out there but it can't be everywhere at once and it is mostly designed for handling adversary states capable of producing their own naval and air forces.

Our ground forces are notoriously thin. Manpower was an issue even before the invasion of Iraq. Much of the mishandling of the early days of the Iraq occupation was due to insufficient manpower devoted to the task.

In order to prevent force levels from declining to dangerous levels we had to employ "backdoor drafts" such as stop loss measures, use of private contractors, local troops and increasing dependence on drones.

In Iraq, we were prepared for a conventional war against a conventional enemy. Instead we got a mostly low intensity guerrilla conflict. All that armor, artillery airpower and seapower was largely underutilized. All those force multipliers that made the backbone of US military planning went to naught.

We can bomb them into the stone age and blockade them, but in terms of putting boots on the ground, its dicey.

When all the nabobs talk of a coming war with Iran, they don't realize it would be nothing more than airstrikes and some naval action. We simply do not have the ability to put enough boots on the ground to make it worth the effort. This is not a major secret. The rest of the world knows this too.

I can be sure some of Mr Walt's works have been translated, so readers in weaker nations must be keenly aware that the lobbying system in American politics is a sure route to power in Washington; special interests groups enormously influence American policy.abroad as well as right here at home.

In such a system of gov't, policy is determined by persuasion (verbal and monetary) and not necessarily by any facts on the ground that would warrant such a policy.

So under such a system of gov't, wouldn't you be asking serious questions about the rationality and predictibility of American power? Of course, we don't see ourselves as crazy, but others do and some of them are scared: they think they're dealing with full blown nutballs with the largest stash of explosives on the planet.

I know that comment was supposed to be a reference to something else that Walt routinely blathers idiotically about. But its not worth pursuing here.

"I can be sure some of Mr Walt's works have been translated, so readers in weaker nations must be keenly aware that the lobbying system in American politics is a sure route to power in Washington; special interests groups enormously influence American policy.abroad as well as right here at home."

You mean people outside of the internet and the halls of academia really take the ramblings of a far-leftist hack writer seriously?

"Of course, we don't see ourselves as crazy, but others do and some of them are scared: they think they're dealing with full blown nutballs with the largest stash of explosives on the planet."

Not really, most countries out there realize that we are a lot of talk but very little action. Like we are going to engage in another full scale conflict anytime soon. Not bloody likely. However, we like to write big checks. Occasionally give out some toys and the occasional food parcel.

"But now that the Soviet Union is gone, America's enemies feel vulnerable even if they comply with Washington's demands. They know that the United States has the wherewithal to take them down if it so decides, so they are unlikely to accept any U.S. demands (to abandon a nuclear program, for example) that would leave them in a position of even greater weakness."

I think it's worth discussion just who these enemies are. The only sort of enemy who would be weakened by giving into U.S. demands are tyrants like Ali Khamenei, Saddam Hussein, or Kim Jong Il. For these dictators, allowing any kind of concession in exchange for lifting of sanctions or drawdown in U.S. military "containment forces" would also mean accepting some criticism of their regime or system. Once criticism is accepted, these leaders' become vulnerable to domestic opposition, and soon the whole house of cards comes falling down much like Gorbachev's "Glasnost" policy did to the Soviet Union.

The reality is we can't continue to fight because we can. Its more of we continue to fight because we feel we must. There is a difference.

Frankly the vast majority of Americans want a world where human rights violations are dealt with. Where genocide is not ignored, where dictatorship is a dirty word. This is in our interests, and the interest of all peoples. Its not something which is realistic, but it is a goal worth keeping in mind. Walt & co would have us ignore these things at our own peril. This sort of thing always comes back to bite us on the ass.

Case in point is that the US will never be treated with any kind of seriousness in Africa due to decades of ignoring various horrific conflicts over there in the past decade or so.

Although most times we try to pick the fights where we have some reasonable chance of success. That's at least the general plan, sometimes, it doesn't quite work out that. However, sitting on the sidelines is not going to help us in any way.

Fact of the matter is, the US can't project the kind of force which makes for decent arguments by academic pundit hacks. It doesn't mean its an effort not worth taking. We just have to be more selective about how we use what few forces we have.

The problem for most foreign policy pundits is they tend to overplay our ability to project military power abroad. We mistake rhetoric for boots on the ground.

Your example of Somalia showed where principles and practicality went into conflict. But frankly what happened over there was hardly well-planned. Had we gone into Somalia originally with the goal of clearing out the warlords, we would not have bugged out of there so fast. This was a case of a president who didn't consider the practical side of the actions taken. We had too few people, inadequate equipment for the job, and poor intelligence. Our forces were primarily equipped for a humanitarian mission, not a conflict.

Should we have gone to Somalia in the first place to prevent famine? Yes. The goal was worth the effort. We just didn't factor in how it should have been done. We are still involved with Somalia right now, albeit in a much more covert role. We still can't leave the area alone because it is one that demands attention (piracy. safe haven for terrorism, a neighboring regional war). We just had to scale back what can be done on a practical end. Foreign policy is not something which should be done on the fly. Failure to consider the practical end of an action always leads to dire results.

Walt and Pilar dismiss the practical side of international relations. Even if national prestige is still tied to defying America, there is always room for a deal to be made. Maybe not in the eyes of the world press, but these things happen nonetheless. For Iran this is especially true. As a dictatorship, it has little to worry about public sentiment of its own people. Iran's assent is whatever its leaders will believe is advantageous. If it sees a conflict as destroying their economy and diplomatic ties, it would cease.

However, right now conflict itself is the goal, not nuclear weapons. Iran has little reason to step down the levels of tension because they benefit from it far more than we do. Our ability to attack Iran is limited to token attacks. Even the threat of those will do much to solidify support for the regime. Threatening the Persian Gulf and using proxy forces in the region allow them to strongarm their Arab rivals into more favorable diplomatic positions.

"These wars in Kuwait (1991), Kosovo (1999), Afghanistan (2001-present), and Iraq (2003-11) all resulted from other states not complying with U.S. demands."

This is farcical to lump them together. Only in the mos.tr abstract sense is the statement true, but the precipitating events that led to the demands are radically different. The invasion, pillaging, and attempted annexation of Kuwait by Iraq in 1991 compared to the preventive war in 2003 are very different types of wars. The decision to invade a country harboring the group that just mass murdered American's on our own soil is vastly different that the humanitarian war in Kosovo.

As an academic you should be familiar with Giovani Sartori's work on conceptual stretching and intention v. extension. This author has engaged in one of the worst cases of conceptual stretching I have seen outside of bad graduate student papers.

Walt, printing this is an embarrassment to your blog. Just because he superficially supports a point you made on a previous blog is no reason to devote a column to this poorly written stuff.

This is a case of failure to believe what you see in the mirror is in fact what is captured in the mirror. American political leadership has been informed by one of the most effective espionage groups in global history. We compel our general public to accept and believe nonsense thru sheer preponderance of State/Corporate interest controls...when all you hear is insane you believe in the insane....how the general public can hear anything else when their basic survival will be placed in jeopardy for leaving the mill is American history. When the tragic toll of death begins to come closer and closer to home the mill expands to accommodate for what has become painfully obvious to the masses of Americans. This expansion is carefully controlled allowing certain vents to come into being. Now this is what Global Greed Leaders know. They know China has an acclimating strategy for positioning itself as number one globally. Firstly it is a labor of the upmost resolve to see it thru and to maintain that acquired status. This can only be supported with the consent of Nations who have the view that China is a friendly and a non menacing interest. China is promoting the narrative, America is hostile, if you don't see and do things their way. They do this without staying it, just by exhibiting their willingness not to intervene in other countries unrest militarily or otherwise. Also in showing in its money policy that it will do what is in its interest and America can take it or leave it. The notion that our American military might is unmatched is true Chinas military might exceeds ours. When it is all said and done in a war with China they can expend four hundred million people, we cannot....their invading troop numbers coming to an America at that point would meet no resistance. I thank G-d those communist have a love of growth greater than an appetite for military conquest....for us greed is our undoing it’s that simple, we fight for greed and greed consume like fire even its self.

Sometimes it is best to read what has been written. Then it would be helpful to understand the most compelling point......which is why we keep fighting, greed it’s that clear......a major point in that writing was our Military might.....whether China is one or two generations behind nukes are nukes, populations are populations, land mass is land mass, who can absorb the most destruction? We do not have the absorption capacity therefore they are unmatched.:-)

Ok.....let me put it like this we are not the only superpower. Russia is a superpower, this term superpower in truth deals with a Nations ability to subject other Nations to it with overwhelming force. China definitely fits nicely into this definition. The thrust of my comments are firstly, that China wants to be number one Global presence, and secondly China has observed our current behavior and studied our early history as a Constitutional Peoples Republic and has followed Washington’s advice no permanent friends only permanently evolving national healthy interest. In this pursuit it is self defeating to be dominating, rather it is prudent that the same way China conducts itself with America it should conduct itself with all Nations non menacing mutually beneficial. Our posture is to proselytize after conquest with the great whore and enemy to humanity, democracy greed which is the tool of choice for Global Greed Leaders (mob).No society on earth is completely free. I am for the Republic form of Liberty. Again I never asserted nor implied that China will not attack America nor do I desire any Nation to attack my country. The point is we cannot win in a battle with China and we need to stop lying to our self. We ought to retrace our steps as a Republic and embrace the wisdom of our infant Nation...reread the Declaration of Independence its advance reading for the enlightened.

"The second is that while the Soviets were evil but rational, today's enemies are irrational."

The third possible explanation is that today's enemies consider that AMERICA is irrational i.e. that power has gone to its head.

I understand that AMERICANS would think is a preposterous idea.

Sure, I understand. But an irrational actor is hardly the best person to judge their own behaviour.

And if AMERICA is acting irrationally then that can explain why other countries refuse to bend the knee i.e. they simply refuse to bow to demands that *they* consider to be irrational, even if *you* can't see how irrational those demands are.

The most cited targets for aggressive action, Taiwan, need to be taken intact to be of any value. A devastated Taiwan is worthless. Its markets and industrial capabilities foodblog need to have as little damage as possible to make it worth the effort in terms of international fallout.