This book is not only a great edited volume on US foreign policy, but it’s also a great primer on International Relations theory and its uses. Indeed, some of the chapters are essential excerpts from classics of IR theory. The value of this book is that you can see American foreign policy filtered through the many varied lenses of IR theory.

The editor, John Ikenberry, chooses to frame this collection of essays on American foreign policy around the theme of the overabundance of theory and the corresponding overdetermination these many plausible descriptions of US foreign policy imply (p. vii). Part of this “problem” of overabundance is located in explanations that lie along different levels of analysis: the individual, the nation-state, and the international system. As Ikenberry notes, Kenneth Waltz and other structural realists put great stock in the idea that structural elements of the international system—anarchy, the resort to self-help, and the balance of power—are essential for determining what states can and cannot do to survive within the international system. Other authors, noting the limits of neorealism, point out that while structural elements of the international system can limit state actions, they do not explain what states do within this restricted realm of action. From this limitation of structural realism, one can see some of the rationales for approaches that stress domestic variables and the role of decision-makers.

Holsti's article on models of IR and Foreign Policy deals with the gap between social scientists and diplomatic historians, and how each can be a corrective for the excesses of the other. In examining the tensions between these two groups, the author briefly describes the roles of classical realism, structural realism, complex interdependence, Marxist and World System theories, and decision-making models of foreign policy and IR. In looking at the last mode of analysis, decision-making analysis, Holsti brings up some very useful concepts--the idea of information pathologies in complex organizations (p. 26), bounded rationality (p. 29), and the differences in crisis and non-crisis decision-making (crisis situations usually get pushed up the policy-making flow chart, while non-crisis moments are dealt by low level bureaucrats who tend to muddle through) (p. 27). In all, there is a lot for the young social scientist to learn in this chapter.

The excerpt from Kenneth Waltz's Theory of International Politics briefly describes his theory of structural realism based on the strong causal influence of elements in the "third image" or international system. As this excerpt explains, while the international system does not determine foreign policy, it does contain it; ergo, an understanding of the structural elements of the international system is a necessary but not sufficient condition for understanding foreign policy. In describing the persistence of structural anarchy, self help, and the importance or relative gain, Waltz also demonstrates the fundamental difference between domestic and international politics and how the security dilemma undermines cooperation and economic specialization among states.

Andrew Bacevich’s essay on the role of open markets in American foreign policy describes how economic prosperity—characterized by luxuriant consumer lifestyles—is an imperative for political survival in US politics. Bacevich convincingly matches the loss of a coherent national identity, brought on by victories of the cultural revolution, with the move toward a national goal of economic growth through trade. His essay works on two propositions: one, that economic growth is an imperative, and two, that domestic markets are insufficient to sustain the necessary level of growth. As Bacevich writes, “unlimited accumulation had long since become the lubricant that kept the system functioning” (p. 168), and politicians have been able to ignore other salient domestic problems through a reduction of the citizen to a consumer (p. 168). Many of the ideas in this essay will challenge you think. Even if you don’t agree with Bacevich’s ideas, you’ll leave with a deeper understanding of the role of economic growth in the US’s foreign policy.

Samuel Huntington’s essay on the tension between American values and institutions, describes how the values of freedom, equality, and democracy cause friction with institutions meant to carry out foreign policy and security. The periodic backlashes that occur when civil society reacts against government can be seen in three reactions by foreign observers: 1) amazement at the US propensity for self-castigation 2) respect for taking its ideals so seriously and 3) concern over the ability of the US to meet its foreign policy commitments (p. 228).

The Mastanduno essay looks how the US system of checks and balances, as a purposefully inferior form of government, limits the US ability to carry out foreign policy. One key observation the author makes is how deep changes in the US bureaucracy after each election leave it at a disadvantage with the “permanent governments” of countries like Japan (p. 254).

Samuel Huntington’s article on power in the global system argues that the current era can best be described not as unipolar but as a strange hybrid system made up of one superpower and several major powers (p. 541). As evidence that the US needs the cooperation of other states to tackle global and regional problems, Huntington cites the dwindling tools for tackling problems alone, including some of the stumbling blocks to unilateral military action (p. 543); in addition, Huntington points to a lack of domestic support for an increased pursuit of hegemony.

Ikenberry’s article on the Bush Doctrine notes how US moves toward unilateralism and disregard for multilateralism will eventually lead to imperial overreach; he also notes how the “long tail” of US military burdens (peacekeeping and state-building) will eventually deplete their resources (p. 573). Instead Ikenberry advocates relying on traditional American strategies balance of power realism and liberal multilateralism (p. 575).

At a little over 600 pages, readers will find a lot of diversity in the essays in this volume and a great introduction to International Relations Theory. I had to read the book in a week for a seminar class, but obviously the book is best taken in slowly -- one essay at a time -- with some read more than once. ( )