Neither pre-emption nor containment are goals in and of themselves; rather, they are competing means to achieve ideological change in adversaries. In this regard, unless pre-emption is followed by decades of occupation, as occurred in Germany and Japan after World War II, containment remains the only tested policy that has achieved real victory against ideologically-committed adversaries. Moreover, in gradually liberalizing states such as Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait, and even Iran, countries for which the United States has de facto practiced containment, the pull of Fundamentalism seems to be weakening.

Times may have changed, but despite the advent of rogue, failed, and weak states, the true character of the threats faced by the United States, along with the goals it pursues, are unchanged since the Cold War. It is reasonable to believe that the means that were so successful in countering the threats of the 1940s may be powerful instruments to counter those of the 21st century.