John and I can certainly thank our commenters for vigorous discussion, even if they didn’t seem to find much to like. Let me address some of the comments we have gotten in three separate posts. First is the debate over whether we actually offer a strategy or not. Second is the core debate between ever-shifting versions of isolationism versus internationalism – this time around framed as “give up on promoting values of any kind and simply stick to balance of power politics” versus “pay attention to the actual life conditions of individuals within states around the world and recognize the ways in which their governments treat them can threaten us.” As usual, there are caricatures aplenty floating around in all the comments on this issue, but if we can't have an honest debate here and move on then we can’t get anywhere. Finally, I will address those critiques that charge us with and unrealistic expectations, either in terms of domestic politics (Peter Trubowitz), or international politics (Steve and Dan).

Read more »

John Ikenberry and I have been directing the Princeton Project on National Security for two and a half years. We set out to "write a collective article" -- to use Princeton's convening power and academic nature to bring together a bipartisan group of almost 400 current and government officials, policy experts, and professors on a wide range of issues. John and I have periodically reported on how the Project was going in our posts on America Abroad, but on September 27th we released the final report, which is available here. What follows below is the executive summary of the first half of the report; the second half offers specific recommendations on a set of policy issues ranging from the implosion of the Middle East to global pandemics, including nuclear proliferation.

Which brings me to today's news. North Korea's actual or claimed test of a nuclear weapon makes the central point of our report more strongly than we ever could.

Read more »