Can America deal with the 21st century? "Strong and imaginative leadership, coherent policies, and responsible politics and government will sustain our great nation.".

• Author: Hagel, Chuck
• Position: National Affairs

MORE THAN 230 years ago, a group of exceptional individuals set upon a perilous and uncertain course in a land that would become the United States of America. They had a purpose to their lives and a vision of liberty with a life free from tyranny, where industry, not privilege, would determine one's future. These free-thinking people were imbued by a sense of fair play, and religious and social tolerance. They possessed a spirit that history never before had seen. They went about building a new land of hope and opportunity.

Yet, the Founding Fathers were not perfect. Slavery and the treatment of Native Americans were two blights oil this new land and this legacy remains with us today. Imperfect as they were, however, the Founders built for this nation the sturdy foundation for a democratic and vibrant society that has prospered since its creation.

Now, as then, we live at a time of historic transformation. The world is confronted with a universe of challenges, threats, and opportunities unlike any that we ever have known. In a 21st century global community, all leaders of all institutions are faced with more uncontrollables than at any time in history in their efforts to govern and lead. This will require a 21st century frame of reference. The margins of error for miscalculation are razor-thin. The 24-hour news cycle that dominates our lives--coupled with the rate and intensity of change--complicates leadership, governance, and society. There is greater diffusion of economic power and global access to information--meaning newfound global economic power--than in the past.

This is a critical time for responsible governance, necessitating hard choices and difficult decisions. This requires courageous, informed, and wise leadership. Maintaining the U.S.'s competitive position in the global economy demands that we begin to inventory and address the first-order challenges in our country. such as trade, energy, deficit spending, entitlement programs, infrastructure, education, immigration, and foreign policy. We only are beginning to understand the scope and complexity of the threats from terrorism and Islamic extremism, pandemic health outbreaks, endemic poverty, environmental crises, and cycles of despair. Allies and international institutions will be essential to our successful engagement of these threats.

Today, we see some parallels to the period following World War II. The world was--and is--in the midst of adjusting to new challenges. After the war, the U.S. and its Gillies created organizations of global benefit and common purpose such as the United Nations. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. NATO. and World Bank. These institutions and alliances are as vital today as when they were formed. However. they need constant adjustment and calibration to stay relevant to the contemporary world. What remains unchanged is the critical importance of institutions, alliances, and relationships to achieve global security, stability, and prosperity.

As Mel Laird, Secretary of Defense under Pres. Richard Nixon, wrote in Foreign Affairs:

"Our pattern of fighting our battles alone or with a marginal "coalition of the willing" contributes to the downward spiral in resources and money. Ironically, Nixon had the answer back in 1969. At the heart of the Nixon Doctrine, announced that first year of his presidency, was the belief that the United States could not go it alone. As he said in his foreign policy report to Congress on February 18, 1970, the United States will participate in the defense and development of Gillies and friends, but America cannot--and will not--conceive all the plans, design all the programs, execute all the decisions, and undertake all the defense of the free nations of the world. We will help where it makes a real difference and is considered in our interest."

Three decades later, we have fallen into a pattern of neglecting our treaty alliances, such as NATO, and endangering the aid we can give our allies by throwing our resources into fights that our allies refuse to join. Vietnam was just such a fight, and Iraq is, too. If our treaty alliances were tended to and shored tip adequately--and here I include the UN--we would not have so much trouble persuading others to join us...