A realist responds.

• Author: Simes, Dimitri K.
• Position: Essay

DEREK CHOLLET wonders where I could have been during the last 15 years to have failed to notice the "intense, sometimes stifling, but largely healthy debate" regarding the U.S. role in the world. I was in Washington. But perhaps we have different definitions of "debate." Certainly there have been interesting and provocative articles in academic journals, presentations on C-SPAN and occasionally fierce, meaningful exchanges on CNN and Fox. There has also been a good deal of partisan sniping. But this is not debate.

Has any major candidate been prepared to subject America's post-Cold War triumphalism to serious examination? Been prepared to acknowledge that in the rapidly changing conditions of the 21st century the United States may need to set priorities and be prepared to accept compromises and trade-offs--whether in addressing trade issues, preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power or enlisting the support of other states to combat terrorists who threaten America? No. Derek Chollet pretty much admits this when he writes: "To be sure, leaders from both Right and Left often came to agreement on certain questions, such as the interventions in the Balkans or the enlargement of NATO." And, as much as a number of Democrats today would deny it, on the need for "regime change" in Iraq.

But did this consensus come about in the aftermath of a vigorous national conversation similar to the one that took place in the United States during the late 1940s? No, it did not. Rather, a series of propositions were put forward--America is the indispensable nation, America's motives cannot be questioned, America is the sole superpower and does not have to choose among priorities--and unconditionally accepted by significant segments of the foreign-policy establishment, in both parties. Indeed, when Texas Representative Ron Paul raised--in an admittedly awkward fashion--the possibility that America's Middle East policies might have contributed to the September 11 tragedy, something the 9/11 Commission itself acknowledged, he was roundly attacked. Most of today's foreign policy discussion is about how badly the Bush-Cheney team mismanaged policy, not whether their fundamental assumptions were flawed.

And why is the recent brouhaha as to whether Barack Obama would meet with a Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad under different circumstances than Hillary. Clinton a sign of debate if, in the end, both would insist on compliance with all American priorities and...