Superpower: Three Choices for Americas Role in the World

By Ian Bremmer
Excerpt from Chapter 1
The next president will inherit a long list of complex domestic challengesto help American companies
create jobs, find common ground between liberals and conservatives on immigration policy, develop an
education reform plan that meets the needs of a diverse population of students, thread the political needle
on tax policy, craft an energy policy that can power the domestic economy and help relieve the energy
dependence of our friends on our rivals, manage the countrys debt, and try to bridge the divide between
left and right. None of that will prevent the new president from pursuing a foreign policy that will
strengthen the United States of America. He or she will have real options to consider.
Lets look at those options. First, there is the argument that a superpower foreign policy no longer
makes sense. Go to YouTube and enter the phrase Marine Corps Commercial: Toward the Sounds of
Chaos. Youll be treated to a powerfully photographed, heart-pounding sixty-second television ad that
begins with a group of U.S. marines sprinting in full body armor toward rising smoke on the horizon and
the ominous sounds of confusion and fear. A deep voice intones, There are a few who move toward the
sounds of chaos. Ready to respond at a moments notice. And when the time comes, they are the first to
move toward the sounds of tyranny, injustice, and despair.
Its just a slickly produced TV commercial, a recruiting tool aimed at boys watching football, but it
beautifully captures the superhero ideal that, some believe, too often guides our conversation about
Americas role in the world. Once we reach the victims of tyranny, injustice, and despair, what do we do
with them? Once weve got the fire out, do we rebuild their homes? Rebuild their schools and hospitals?
Rebuild their governments? Rebuild their countries? What should we do with the bad guys? How long
would all that take and what would it cost? Were not the worlds fire department.
An increasing number of Americans now tell pollsters that Washington should spend much less time
on other peoples problems and more on helping America realize its true promise. Weve spent enough to
rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, they insist, and its past time for these countries to stand on their own. No
more responsibilities overseas that threaten our safety, solvency, and self-confidence. Lets invest in
America, spend fewer tax dollars on badly designed foreign policy adventures, and speak to the world not
from the moral mountaintop but through the power of a positive example. This point of view has much to
recommend it.
Others insist that we cant simply retreat and expect the worlds problems to leave us alone. There
are certain things Americans can and should do to pursue and defend U.S. interests overseas. The central
flaw in our current strategy, they insist, is that we have no real priorities, that we think we can afford to
make up our foreign policy as we go, and that our plans are designed to meet the worlds needs before our
own. We need to stop wasting so many lives and so much money, they argue, in a foolish attempt to
remake the world in our image. We need a foreign policy thats designed to make America safer and more
prosperous, not to prepare other countries for democracy and rule of law. Chinas leaders arent exporting
Chinese values. Theyre promoting and protecting Chinas interests. Washington ought to do the same.
Theres a lot to be said for this argument as well.
Still others warn that in todays interconnected world, its dangerously nave to believe that America
can ever really be safe in an unsafe world. We cant create jobs and grow our economy without a stable
global economy. No nation can do more than the United States to promote and protect this better world,
and it is Americas values, not its economic weight or military might, that we leave behind when the
troops head home. Values that help others stand on their own. Washington, they argue, must get its
financial house in order, invest in a stronger America, and pursue U.S. interests around the world. But it is
shortsighted to believe that we can only build lasting strength at home by retreating from the world or by
renouncing our faith in the power of democracy, freedom of speech, rule of law, and freedom from
poverty and fear to create broadly shared peace and prosperity. This argument has merits too.
Americans have real options. The United States can play global policeman if it wants to. It cant

patrol every street or take down every bad guy, but it could play the dominant role in shaping military and
economic outcomes in every region of the world. It could promote, protect, and defend the values that
Americans say they believe in. Or we could build an ambitious foreign policy designed to put America
first, one that risks American lives and devotes our resources only toward plans that will make America
more secure and more prosperous. Or we could mind our own business internationally, let other countries
get along the best they can, and invest in rebuilding American strength from within.
Which is the right choice? What do Americans really want? There is no more important question
facing Americas would-be leaders.