Politician

During the twentieth century, men fought on behalf of nationalism. Yet the wars they fought were also engendered by dislocations in world markets and by social revolution stimulated by the coming of the industrial age.

It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam.

What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?

Waging a colonial war in the post-colonial age is self-defeating.

The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

There's something troubling about a condition in which one country alone, which has roughly 5 percent of the world's population, spends more than 50 percent of the world's defense budgets. There's something weird about it.

I draw a very clear distinction between populism and democracy.

American power worldwide is at its historic zenith.

Let's cooperate and challenge the administration to cooperate with us because within the administration there are also moderates and people who are not fully comfortable with the tendencies that have prevailed in recent times.

The Chinese are really good at diplomacy - and even at making their interlocutors feel very uncomfortable.

The Sino-American competition involves two significant realities that distinguish it from the Cold War: neither party is excessively ideological in its orientation; and both parties recognize that they really need mutual accommodation.

World War II and the ensuing Cold War compelled the United States to develop a sustained commitment to Western Europe and the Far East.

The legitimacy of the leadership depends on what that country thinks of its leaders.

The United States should not engage in tit-for-tat polemics directed at its most important allies. That is as demeaning as it is destructive.

A president who aspires to be recognized as a global leader should not personally stake out a foreign-policy goal, commit himself eloquently to its attainment, and then yield the ground when confronted by firm opposition.

With the decline of America's global preeminence, weaker countries will be more susceptible to the assertive influence of major regional powers.

Constant reference to a 'war on terror' did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear.

We defended our allies in Europe for 40 years during the worst days of the Cold War - very threatening days of the Cold War - and nothing happened. So deterrence does work.

If we slide into a pattern of just thinking about today, we'll end up reacting to yesterday instead of shaping something more constructive in the world.

The first 'world' war was in reality the last European war fought by globally significant European powers.