The Foreign Service Journal, June 2005

58 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / J U N E 2 0 0 5 he 2004 presidential campaign could have facilitated a useful debate about the nature and pur- pose of American engagement in the world. But instead, it focused narrowly on terrorism and Iraq poli- cy (and, to a lesser degree, home- land security). As a result, seven months later we are sad- dled with a near-term policy that could easily produce long- t e rminsecurity, a national security strategy built on a scaf- folding of fear and a vision of global hand-to-hand combat with terrorist organizations. That strategy commits us to pre-empting — acting uni- laterally if necessary — any effort we choose by any group or nation anywhere in the world to employ weapons of mass destruction or use terrorist methods to attack the United States or U.S. interests. It has recently been sup- plemented to commit us to promote democratization around the world, with Iraq and Afghanistan serving as the test cases. But while real, the security problems this approach is intended to address — terrorism and weapons of mass destruction — are tactics used in the pursuit of larger goals by nations and transnational movements. Dedicating the entire architecture of national security to combating these two threats, as we have done for the past four years, has actually made matters worse. Iraq has become a breeding g round and training site for terrorists, while the race to acquire nuclear technology continues elsewhere, partly in response to U.S. policy. Meanwhile, the Bush administration is ignoring some powerful underlying trends in international security affairs that spawn terror and enhance the demand for nuclear weapons and other WMDs. Unless these trends are addressed, and soon, we will be fighting terrorists and fear- ing nukes for a very long time indeed. However, addressing them requires an integrated use of all the tools of statecraft and a long-term engagement with other states and organiza- tions, even those that are not like-minded — perhaps espe- cially those. Successful engagement on these long-term issues will require a profound shift in the way Americans view them- selves and the impact of their country on the world. Above all, it calls for a recognition that the United States does not stand above events in the world, responding to threats, but is, itself, an independent variable, an actor whose past and p resent actions have shaped how the rest of the world views F EAR VS . H OPE : A MERICA AND G LOBAL S ECURITY T O BE TRULY SECURE , A MERICA NEEDS TO CHANGE THE WAY IT LOOKS AT THE REST OF THE WORLD — AND PAY ATTENTION TO SOME LARGER UNDERLYING TRENDS . B Y G ORDON A DAMS Gordon Adams, a professor of international affairs, is the director of the Security Policy Studies Program at the Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington University. From 1993 to 1997, he was associate director for national security and international affairs at the Office of Management and Budget, and from 1998-1999 he was deputy director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. He is the author of numerous studies on national security policy and budgeting, and on transatlantic defense relationships, including The Politics of Defense Contracting: The Iron Triangle (Transaction Publishers, 1981). T