The Foreign Service Journal, January 2007

map for extricating ourselves from the Iraq quagmire. It should be essential reading not only for all decision-mak- ers and their advisers in Washington, but for all Americans. Retired three-time ambassador Robert V. Keeley operates Five and Ten Press, a small, independent publishing com- pany he founded to bring out original articles, essays and other short works of fiction and non-fiction that have been rejected or ignored by main- stream outlets. Calling a New Mr. or Ms. X! Forging a World of Liberty under Law: U.S. National Security in the 21st Century (Final Report of the Princeton Project on National Security) G. John Ikenberry and Anne-Marie Slaughter, Princeton University, 2006, http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ppns/ report.html (not for sale, only avail- able online), 96 pages. R EVIEWED BY K EITH W. M INES Back in 1998, writer Eliot Cohen called for a new “Mr. X” (the late great George Kennan’s nom de plume) to define the post-Cold War world and save America from its “brain-dead two-war strategy.” Five years after the 9/11 attacks there is a new foe on the scene, making such a quest all the more urgent. Alas, no Mr. X (or Ms. X) has stepped for- ward, and we have no compelling for- eign policy doctrine to provide that overarching, synthesizing concept. To fill the void, dean of Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School Anne-Marie Slaughter and Wilson School Professor G. John Ikenberry set up the Princeton Project on National Security in 2004, bringing together some 400 policymakers and academics to write a “collective Mr. X article.” They reasoned that it would take that many people “to do togeth- er what no one person in our highly specialized and rapidly changing world could hope to do alone.” The scope of the undertaking was breath- taking, including on its roster such luminaries as Francis Fukuyama, Tod Lindberg, Joseph Nye, Ivo Daalder, Walter Russell Mead, Richard Haass, Dan Kurzer and George Shultz. The participants formed various working groups to analyze how the United States “must deal with a series of profound changes in the international landscape, including rising new powers, a tightening ener- gy market, increasing anti-Ameri- canism and a globalized economy.” They then looked at “serious security threats that emanate from instability in the Middle East, Islamic radical- ism, global terrorist networks, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the spread of infectious diseases and global warming.” On a more positive note, they also examined the “tre- mendous opportunities for the ad- vancement of democracy, prosperity and respect for human rights in much of the world.” The report argues for “an Ameri- can grand strategy of forging a world of liberty under law by supporting popular, accountable and rights- regarding governments; building a liberal international order; and updating rules on the use of force.” Embedded in its pages are a number of really good ideas. For instance, the study acknowl- edges the importance of nationbuild- ing in a way that is reminiscent of Thomas Barnett’s description of “core” and “gap” countries in his 2004 book, The Pentagon’s New Map , and echoes his call for the U.S. to assist and encourage popular govern- ments that are accountable. To rebuild the broken system of interna- tional institutions, the group envi- sions a concert of democracies that would “institutionalize and ratify the democratic peace” while fixing the U.N. and NATO. And to fight ter- rorism, the group suggests a global counterinsurgency campaign “that utilizes a range of tools, particularly law enforcement, intelligence and surgical military tools.” There are similarly interesting ideas on stemming the proliferation of nuclear weapons and global pan- demics, promoting energy security and building a protective infrastruc- ture, many of which deserve to be tried. That said, I found myself longing for a single author to cut through what feels like a very limiting exercise in groupthink. It is clear that the price for participation for many of the luminaries was that their ideas be reflected somewhere, somehow. That approach yields a series of lists that, however worthy, simply don’t add up to Cohen’s praise for Kennan’s formulation of contain- ment: “a superb strategic concept; simple, sweeping and flexible.” There may well have been a new Mr. or Ms. X somewhere in the mix. But if so, his or her voice was proba- bly snuffed out, either by the process of collaboration or by the demands of editing. In the end, what this project best establishes is that if a new Mr. or Ms. X is to arise, it will be as the result of a lonelier enterprise. So, calling Mr. X? Keith Mines is a political officer in Ottawa. An FSO since 1991, he has served in Tel Aviv, El Salvador, Port- au-Prince, Budapest, Al Anbar (Iraq) and Washington, D.C. 54 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 7 B O O K S