I follow a blogger – Graham Fuller (ex CIA, Intelligence operative, author of a dozen books on middle east, etc) who writes provocative pieces that challenge opposing views on serious issues.
Today’s deals with America’s role in the world – Fuller believes there are two distinct choices: remain an activist interventionist in world affairs; or, adopt more of a “laissez-faire” role, allowing the world’s countries to function and resolve its problems with greater autonomy – even if it’s messy and tedious and differs from the Democratic model.
He quotes: “…do we really believe that the US will atrophy as a society in the absence of “maintaining global values?” It would be sad to think that US greatness depends on constant intervention and war in the name of the global order.”
What would this mean in terms of our commitment to foreign aid, size and scope of our military, world leadership? Indeed, what would it mean domestically if America’s leadership turned its attention and resources more inward?