Not So New World Order

In his 1991 State of the Union speech, President George H.W. Bush fanned the easily fanned fires of conspiracy theorists everywhere by invoking the phrase "new world order" to describe the international coalition that had lined up to oppose Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

On the extreme fringes of American politics, "new world order" is a buzzword for a one-world, black helicopter, Trilateral Commission, United Nations takeover of America. Of course, that's not what Mr. Bush meant; he had in mind the kind of world order that one of his Republican predecessors, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had described as "a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength."

On Saturday, another president called for a new world order, though in his speech to graduates of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Barack Obama avoided that precise phrasing. Like Mr. Eisenhower and Mr. Bush before him, Mr. Obama called for international coalitions "that can meet the challenges of our generation."

Those challenges are not strictly military, the president said, but this new "international order" will "lessen conflicts around the world. It will be supportive of our efforts by our military to secure our country."

As a statement of broad foreign policy imperatives, Mr. Obama's contrasts boldly with those outlined eight years earlier, also to a West Point graduating class, by his immediate predecessor, George W. Bush.

"Our security will require transforming the military you will lead — a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world," Mr.

Bush said. "And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives."

America's right to strike unilaterally was a cornerstone of what became known variously as the "Bush Doctrine" or "cowboy diplomacy." It led us into Iraq, not with the broad coalition of Bush pere, but with the "coalition of the willing" of Bush fils. On Saturday, Mr. Obama repudiated it.

"Yes, we are clear-eyed about the shortfalls of our international system," Mr. Obama told the Corps of Cadets. "But America has not succeeded by stepping out of the currents of cooperation — we have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice, so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities and face consequences when they don't."

This is the Eisenhower Doctrine recast: "Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose," Mr. Eisenhower said in his 1961 farewell address.

More than most people, Mr. Eisenhower understood the limitations of military power. Only when military might is in service with the ideals of the nation can the nation succeed.

President Obama's new "international order" places as much emphasis on meeting the non-military challenges as it does military ones — education, foreign development, intelligence, allegiance to law, clean energy, research and scientific advancement and rebuilding the national economy.

This is defense and foreign policy in a holistic sense, networked and nuanced. It's harder to understand than building bigger bombs and chest pounding about military might. It's also far more likely to succeed.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM