The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (3 comments)

  1. Unfortunately, there may not be much middle ground in the foreign affairs arena. According to Michael Rubin, “A half century worth of experience does not support the thesis that diplomacy with rogue regimes or terrorist groups brings peace.” (

    So, if the only real alternative is “meddle, impose, and dominate”, there may be something to be said for “buy, invest, or bug off”.

    1. Jorge Barroso

      I don’t agree with such posture. Even though I have not read the Rubins’ book, so far, I think that it must be something in the middle. If you buy or invest, who is going to support your property or investment? There must be a “power” behind you to be protected from the rogue regimes. I think that those who are trying to isolate America from the world don’t understand how the world runs. The only stupidity that we need is an absent (because deleted) Secretary of State, and no embassies (then the Benghazi affair had not happened, see?).

  2. Benjamin Cole

    The results of Iraq and Afghanistan—and $6 trillion in costs or incurred liabilities for taxpayers—strongly suggest that US interventionism is a loser.
    Throwing money at the problems of the world in pursuit of utopian goals…hasn’t worked.
    Shrinking the federal government is the best course now. As for “cuts” in defense spending, I wish we could see some. VA spending has exploded and tops $150 billion a year.
    AEI should consider radical reformation of national security spending—can we spend much less but meet true defense needs?

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content