Seize the Moment Read Free

the end of history overstated the triumph of the ideas of liberal democracy and market economics. Never before has capitalism been so broadly accepted as the foundation of sustained growth and elections been so widely heralded as the basis for limited and accountable government. But rival ideas have not been driven from the field. Advocates of the cradle-to-grave welfare state and of “socialism with a human face” still carry clout at the elitist dinner parties in Washington and other Western capitals. Marxism is alive and well in many American universities, and radical ideologies such as Pan Arabism and Islamic fundamentalism have enormous appeal in the Middle East.
    We should never underestimate the unpredictability of history. Previous proponents of “the end of history” have been proved wrong. Over two hundred years ago, Immanuel Kant foresaw an imminent “perpetual peace” as a result of the spread of democracy around the world. But Lenin’s communism, Mussolini’s fascism, and Hitler’s Nazism were only a few of the surprises that confounded his predictions. However illogical and inhumane these ideologies were, the leaders who espoused them did take power and proceeded ruthlessly to use that power to advance their twisted ideas. Rationality and politics have parted ways before. We cannot disregardthe possibility that they might do so again. As Paul Johnson observed, “One of the lessons of history is that no civilization can be taken for granted. Its permanency can never be assured. There is always a dark age waiting for you around the corner, if you play your cards badly and you make sufficient mistakes.”
    The myth of the irrelevance of military power. After the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan and the “velvet revolutions” in Eastern Europe, it became fashionable to argue that military power no longer serves as the key instrument of statecraft or represents the bedrock of foreign policy. Some say that interdependence among the great powers has rendered the use of force irrelevant. Others hold that the costs of waging war, in terms of both resources and world opinion, have become prohibitive. Still others contend that, as the cold war waned, the importance of economic power and “geo-economics” has surpassed military power and traditional geopolitics. America, they conclude, must beat its swords not into plowshares, but into microchips.
    Though economic interdependence constricts every country’s freedom of action, it does not make military power irrelevant. While the end of the cold war has substantially reduced security concerns in Western Europe, our NATO allies know that a transatlantic security pact and a credible U.S. nuclear and conventional presence in Europe are essential to guarantee peace and security in a period of unprecedented instability in the former Soviet bloc.
    If an issue affects vital national interests, a major power will throw even the strongest economic ties overboard in order to prevail. In both world wars, nations that traded with each other killed each other’s citizens by the millions. At the height of the cold war, many argued that trade with the Soviet Union would sate the Kremlin’s appetite for expansion.While trade can serve as an important added restraint on potential aggressors, it can never substitute for hard-headed deterrence based on military power. None of the West’s credits and investments in the 1970s dissuaded the Kremlin from ordering the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
    Those who propound the irrelevance of military power vastly overstate the influence of economic power. The world’s rising economic giants—Germany and Japan—have exploited their huge foreign exchange reserves and industrial competitiveness. They have gained control of foreign markets, dominated key bilateral trade relationships, and have set the pace for the economic integration of Europe and the Pacific rim. But on