Related to this, countries, regardless of size and resources, will often be better served by pursuing their interests through multilateral frameworks. There are still many policymakers that believe that the United States, thanks to its hard power resources, can unilaterally dictate the terms of the international agenda. This presumption led the current administration to dispense with the United Nations and NATO when these institutions became inconvenient to its goals in Iraq. Stuck now in the growing quagmire that is Iraq, the most dominant country in the history of world politics since the Roman Empire is learning that it cannot get what it wants without cooperating with other states.

During the first eight months of the Bush administration, the United States was preoccupied with old school politics—focused almost exclusively on realpolitik ends achieved through hard power means. The September 11 attacks served as a call for a return to a more complex understanding of world politics. When the Bush administration, immediately following the attacks, promulgated a new strategy that linked national security with non-traditional issues such as development and failing states, it seemed to be on the right path of balancing realist and liberal perspectives. The administration, unfortunately, quickly returned to old habits. Once again, hard power is trumping soft power, military force is cast as more virtuous than international law, and ad hoc coalitions continue to prevail over established international organizations. As a result, the initial successes of the war on terrorism are now overshadowed by the failures of the war in Iraq.

If we are to comprehend the intricate workings of foreign affairs, we must open our minds to accepting the teachings of liberalism alongside those of realism. Continuing to privilege realism is just another recipe for disaster—a disaster that, next time, may be even greater than that of September 11.