Abstract
Security First (Etzioni, 2007) is a weighty and worthy addition to the growing debate on how to redefine U.S. foreign policy post-Iraq. In seeking to reintroduce clarity and prioritization into U.S. strategic thinking while retaining a place for morality, Etzioni's ideas have much in common with America's 20th-century classical realist tradition. Although it does good service by restating some sound principles, the Security First model still faces some uncertainties regarding its coherence and workability. These center on its assertion that morality and interests are complementary, its apparent assumption of the legitimacy and feasibility of neoimperial oversight in the international system, and its implicit avoidance of the hardest choices thanks to fragile assumptions concerning the ultimate inevitability of democracy's triumph. Meanwhile, its prescription of a new strategic outlook for Americans seems likely to fall foul of the resistance of American political culture to change against which realists have been railing for generations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
