Americans today debate possible new interventions, withdrawals, disputes over what does and does not constitute a "red line," and other applications of power abroad in light of enormous geopolitical changes and challenges. Let the debate consider the long history of cautious realism.
Hugo Chavez defied this history of power relations in the hemisphere. And for that defiance elite voices will vilify him, but a far larger number of people will see him as a hero.
So, where does Washington go from here? If it wants to preserve its increasingly tenuous foothold in a nation with the world's largest oil reserves, it might begin by engaging in some honest diplomacy.
Given all these swords and all these shields (and all of our frustrating wars and all of the lives spent), the key question of the 2012 presidential election should be: Are we truly more secure now than we were twelve years ago?
European governments are exerting heavy-handed influence through UN agencies, demanding that nations like El Salvador, Costa Rica, Belize, and Bolivia enact abortion-on-demand. And not just these little Latin states are being bossed.
The IMF has proposed a plan that might help Haiti build a new foundation for nation building. But if this plan is to succeed it will need to contain the global drug trade that dominates Haiti's economy.
Theodore Roosevelt won the Peace Prize for bringing the Russians and Japanese to the negotiating table to end the bloody Russo-Japanese War. In fact, Roosevelt did little to abet peace.
Ethanol trade has helped make China Brazil's top trade partner, replacing Uncle Sam, who had been top dog ever since Herbert Hoover was in the White House.
Bush, like his predecessors, has worked to undo the result and promote a less democratic alternative. Promoting democracy does not matter, because the game has degenerated into unlimited greed.