- Congressman: McAuliffe victory means gun control a winning message
- Clinton aide admits soliciting disgraced D.C. fundraiser; says actions were legal
- Joel Osteen church victimized in $600K theft
- Obama goes shopping at Gap as minimum-wage thanks
- N.J. woman charged after client dies from black-market butt injections
- CIA chief Brennan ‘determined’ to speak out more this year
- Reset? What reset? U.S.-Russia ties at worst since Cold War
- 9/11 terror recruiter released in Syrian prisoner swap
- D.C. elections board gives green light to marijuana legalization initiative
- Elephants can tell difference between human languages: study
Threats blurred for U.S. after Cold War
Four U.S. administrations have struggled to answer that question, recounted by Mr. Powell in his 1995 autobiography, “My American Journey.”
Over the past two decades, the United States has targeted and been targeted by adversaries ranging from Iraq’s Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden. But U.S. officials and the American people have sometimes had difficulty calibrating threats, hyping lesser foreign irritants into bogeymen while failing to recognize more serious challenges to U.S. national security.
When the Berlin Wall fell, “the U.S. lost the organizing principle of its foreign policy,” which had been containing the Soviet Union, said Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
“We’ve had two decades of debate, confusion, at times incoherence and at times success and overreach,” said Mr. Haass, a veteran of two Republican administrations — that of George H.W. Bush, who presided when the Soviet empire dissolved, and his son, George W. Bush.
In Mr. Haass‘ view, some challenges, such as Saddam’s Iraq, have been exaggerated, while too little attention was paid to issues such as climate change, which threatens to destabilize many nations and create millions of refugees from droughts and rising seas.
TWT RELATED STORIES:
• 20 years after the Berlin Wall’s fall: An East European looks back
• For Germany, unity proves elusive
• Democracy a struggle in former Soviet Union
• Poland embraces past while moving ahead
• Relics of grim era keep past in mind
• Students lack historical perspective of Berlin Wall
• nato-eu-experience-growing-pains/” target=”_blank”>NATO, EU experience growing pains
• Artists marginalized by own revolution
• Communism’s fall opened sports world
“Before this century is over, global warming, proliferation and disease could turn out to be the cardinal challenges of this era,” he said. “It’s entirely possible that the 21st century will be defined more by global challenges than great power rivalry.”
Brent Scowcroft, Mr. Haass‘ boss as national security adviser to the first President Bush, agrees that the “the end of the Cold War was followed by a period of strategic drift. It’s pretty natural because what we had left behind is this existential threat of a serious mistake leading to a nuclear war which would destroy us, our enemies, maybe the world. All the threats in the world compared to that seemed minuscule.”
Mr. Scowcroft said Americans are slow to recognize threats until they become acute and have had particular difficulty dealing with problems that cannot be resolved by one nation acting alone or with a few close allies.
“It took us time for us to adjust to the fact that a lot of things were happening in the world that had been masked by the Cold War,” he told reporters and editors at The Washington Times recently. “So many more of the problems of the world take international cooperation to deal with — like climate change, like energy problems — that the whole nation-state system is under some attack.”
Mr. Scowcroft said the impact of globalization — particularly the speed with which information is now disseminated around the world — is similar to that of industrialization 250 years ago. “Industrialization built the nation-state,” he said. “Globalization is eroding the things the nation-state can do for itself.”
Stephen J. Hadley, national security adviser to the second President Bush, said the U.S. had been slow to appreciate threats from terrorism and nuclear proliferation in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War.
“We took a holiday in the 1990s; rather than find new enemies, we did just the opposite” in terms of our military and intelligence budgets, he said.
“We were slow to realize that al Qaeda was at war with us and slow in responding to Iraq. It was the ‘end of history’ and the end of threats and the end of ideology. When people asked what would be the next ‘ism,’ nobody had any candidates. We were a little too complacent.”
About the Author
Barbara Slavin is assistant managing editor for World and National Security at The Washington Times and the author of a 2007 book on Iran, titled “Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S. and the Twisted Path to Confrontation.” Before joining The Times in July 2008, she was senior diplomatic reporter for USA Today. She has accompanied three secretaries of state ...
TWT Video Picks
An America drowning in red ink is the land of the free no more
- David Jolly wins in Florida, GOP keeps swing district seat
- Kim Jong-un calls for execution of 33 Christians
- House Democrats trying to force unemployment insurance vote
- Redskins bypass big splash - for now - as free agency period begins
- Hillary Clinton campaign received funds from Jeffrey Thompson
- FCC targets black conservative in TV station fight
- Atheists sue to remove 'Ground Zero Cross' from 9/11 museum
- Sharyl Attkisson resigns from CBS after months of talks
- 80 people publicly executed across North Korea for films, Bibles
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
Pope Francis meets his 'mini-me'
Celebrity deaths in 2014
Winter storm hits states — again