Increasingly, Americans doubt the wisdom and effectiveness of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy. They wonder whether our mission can succeed and whether toppling Saddam was the right priority to win the “war on terrorism.” President Bush now regularly justifies regime change in Iraq on grounds that democracy there and elsewhere is essential to security America’s future. Practically speaking, democracy promotion is the principal pill of President Bush’s long-term strategy to win the war on terror. As Americans and our partners weigh progress towards achieving our goals in Iraq, we should ask not only whether we are succeeding there, but also whether the United States has a viable strategy for improving its own and our collective security over the long term. Is democracy promotion sufficient to achieve greater security, and are we doing it well enough?
Mao Zedong did not see the value of reform and opening up. The China part of Nixon’s 1967 Foreign Affairs article suggested an implicit bargain that provided the conceptual basis for China’s new direction after 1978. That bargain was if China focused on domestic development and didn’t threaten the security of its neighbours, the United States would help.
[President Trump's counterparts fear that Americans] do not feel they need to lead the world anymore... The United States is still the dominant power out there – the Atlantic alliance is still alive. But [Trump's] foreign policy weakened some of the elements.