ANNOUNCER: THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS THE MOST POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH.

IT IS ARGUABLY THE MOST POWERFUL NATION IN HISTORY.

SO TO WHAT PURPOSES SHOULD THAT POWER BE PUT?

WHAT IS AND SHOULD BE THE RIGHT AND BEST ROLE FOR THIS COUNTRY IN WORLD AFFAIRS?

THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY...

THE CHARLES KOCH FOUNDATION, AMETEK, CNX RESOURCES, BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, AND BY... FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS IN ENGLISH-SPEAKING COURTROOMS AROUND THE WORLD, PEOPLE HAVE SWORN AN OATH TO TELL NOT ONLY THE TRUTH, BUT RATHER THE WHOLE TRUTH.

THE OATH REFLECTS THE WISDOM THAT FAILING TO TELL ALL OF A STORY CAN BE AS EFFECTIVE AS LYING, IF YOUR GOAL IS TO MAKE THE FACTS SUPPORT YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

IN THE COURTROOM, THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH ALSO RELIES ON ADVOCATES ADVANCING FIRM, CONTRADICTORY ARGUMENTS AND DOING SO WITH DECORUM.

ALL THESE APPLY TO THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, WHAT JOHN STUART MILL CALLED "THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS."

THIS SERIES IS A PLACE IN WHICH THE COMPETING VOICES ON THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES OF OUR TIMES ARE CHALLENGED AND SET INTO MEANINGFUL CONTEXT SO THAT VIEWERS LIKE YOU CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES THE WHOLE TRUTH.

GEORGE WASHINGTON WARNED THE NEW AMERICA AGAINST "ENTANGLING ALLIANCES" WITH FOREIGN NATIONS.

AND JOHN QUINCY ADAMS URGED THAT AMERICANS GO "NOT ABROAD IN SEARCH OF MONSTERS TO DESTROY."

SHORTLY THEREAFTER, WE WOULD, IN THE MONROE DOCTRINE, DECLARE GEOPOLITICAL HEGEMONY OVER THE ENTIRE WESTERN HEMISPHERE AND WITHIN TWO DECADES PROCLAIM THAT MANIFEST DESTINY SHOULD SPAN FROM THE ATLANTIC TO THE PACIFIC.

A HALF-CENTURY LATER, PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON BEGAN TO SPEAK OF AMERICA AS A WORLD POWER DIFFERENT FROM ALL THOSE WHICH CAME BEFORE AND COUNSELED AN AMERICAN RESPONSIBILITY TO CREATE A WORLD ORDER SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY AND SAFE FROM MAJOR WAR.

FOR 70 YEARS FOLLOWING THE SECOND WORLD WAR, THE UNITED STATES ACTED AS A GLOBAL COLOSSUS WITH NO CORNER OF THE PLANET TOO REMOTE TO BE BEYOND THE REACH OF AMERICAN POWER, AND VERY FEW EVENTS ANYWHERE AGREED TO BE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF AMERICAN INTERESTS.

AND PERHAPS THE CULMINATION OF THIS EXPANSIVE VIEW OF AMERICA'S ROLE IN THE WORLD CAME IN THE SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, WHO SAID, "SO..." IT IS THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES TO SEEK AND SUPPORT THE GROWTH OF DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENTS AND INSTITUTIONS IN EVERY NATION AND CULTURE, WITH THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF ENDING TYRANNY IN OUR WORLD.

[APPLAUSE] BUT PRESIDENT OBAMA AND PRESIDENT TRUMP, IN DIFFERENT WAYS TO BE SURE, BOTH CAMPAIGNED FOR OFFICE AND GOVERNED FROM A PREMISE THAT AMERICA WAS OVEREXTENDED AND NEEDED TO DO FAR LESS AS WORLD POLICEMAN.

TODAY ON "THE WHOLE TRUTH," WE ARE GOING TO HEAR FROM BRILLIANT AND PASSIONATE ADVOCATES OF VERY DIFFERENT SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT CONCERNING AMERICA'S PLACE IN THE WORLD NOW AND LOOKING TOWARDS THE FUTURE.

EISENHOWER: HERE WITH US ARE DR. BARRY POSEN, THE FORD INTERNATIONAL PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT M.I.T.

; WILLIAM KRISTOL, DIRECTOR OF DEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER AND EDITOR AT LARGE OF THE "BULWARK"; AND MICHELE FLOURNOY, COFOUNDER AND MANAGING PARTNER OF WestExec ADVISORS, AND FORMER UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

FROM INDISPENSABLE NATION, WHICH IS WHERE I THINK WE WERE 20 YEARS AGO TO AMERICA FIRST, WE ARE, IN FACT, ENGAGED IN A GREAT DEBATE IN THIS COUNTRY ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY.

HOW DID WE GET THERE, FROM THERE TO HERE?

I'D LIKE TO GO AROUND THE TABLE.

INDISPENSABLE NATION OR AMERICA FIRST?

YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT ANY REALLY MAJOR PROBLEM, WHETHER IT'S CLIMATE CHANGE OR NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION OR WHAT HAVE YOU, VERY HARD FOR ANY ONE NATION, EVEN THE MOST POWERFUL NATION, TO DEAL WITH THAT ALONE.

AND SO THE U.S. WAS SEEN AS THE LEADER, THE INDISPENSABLE LEADER, TO BUILD COALITIONS OF LIKE-MINDED STATES TO GO AFTER EITHER THE SOLVING OR THE MANAGEMENT OF SOME OF THESE HARD PROBLEMS.

BUT ISN'T THAT A PHRASE THAT BEGINS WITH ALBRIGHT?

OR NO?

I THINK IT WAS, THE PHRASE MAY HAVE BEGUN WITH BILL CLINTON AND SECRETARY ALBRIGHT, BUT THE IDEA BEHIND IT, I THINK, WAS-- RIGHT.

YOU KNOW, SHARED... OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME.

THE TRANSITION TO SORT OF AMERICA FIRST IS ALMOST A BACK TO THE FUTURE IDEA.

IT'S A MORE ISOLATIONIST STANCE, BUT I THINK IT'S IN PART A BACKLASH AGAINST THE SENSE THAT AT SOME POINT, AMERICA BECAME OVEREXTENDED, PARTICULARLY IN MILITARY INVENTIONS IN IRAQ AND TO A LESSER EXTENT MAYBE AFGHANISTAN.

BUT I THINK--AND ALSO THIS SENSE THAT THE UNITED STATES IN LEADING WAS ALSO BEARING A DISPROPORTIONATE BURDEN VIS-A-VIS OUR ALLIES.

IT'S A VIEW THAT TENDS TO UNDERVALUE THE STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF THOSE UNIQUE ALLIANCES AND RELATIONSHIPS.

BILL, HOW DOES IT LOOK TO YOU?

QUITE A CHANGE, HUH?

YEAH, IT'S A DECLINE.

I MEAN, BECAUSE THE TRUTH ABOUT AN INDISPENSABLE NATION IS MADELEINE ALBRIGHT DIDN'T JUST MAKE IT UP AND SELL IT.

IT WAS A FACT.

IT WAS A FACT IN WORLD WAR II.

IT WAS A FACT IN THE COLD WAR.

IT WAS A FACT IN THE BALKANS, AND IT WAS A FACT, IN MY VIEW, AFTER 9/11 AND REMAINS A FACT IF THERE'S TO BE ANY HOPE OF A BETTER MIDDLE EAST FOR THE NEXT-- FOR THIS CENTURY, WHICH I THINK THERE REMAINS SOME HOPE FOR DESPITE VARIOUS ATTEMPTS OF OURS TO WITHDRAW FROM THAT EFFORT.

AND IT, INCIDENTALLY, IS ALSO A FACT OF HOW DANGEROUS THE WORLD BECOMES IF WE DO JUST DECIDE TO WASH OUR HANDS OF PLACES, AS WE DID AFGHANISTAN, WHICH REALLY IS HIGH ON THE LIST OF PLACES YOU WOULD WANT TO WASH YOUR HANDS OF IF YOU LOOK AROUND STRATEGICALLY, AND ALL THE ALLEGED BRILLIANT STRATEGISTS WERE ALL FINE WITH GETTING OUT OF AFGHANISTAN IN '89 AND NOT WASTING RESOURCES THERE.

IT'S SO MANY THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY, AND SO WHY GET INVOLVED?

AND AFTER THAT, HOW DID THAT WORK OUT?

SO I THINK AMERICA FIRST, UNFORTUNATELY, IS A MIXTURE OF WISTFULNESS AND SOME NOSTALGIA, AS MICHELE SAYS.

AND, ACTUALLY, A LOT OF JUST ILL SPIRIT TOWARDS--YOU KNOW, IT WAS A CERTAIN KIND OF SELFISHNESS THAT, YOU KNOW, "WHY ARE WE JUST WASTING THIS MONEY?"

WE'RE NOT SPENDING THAT MUCH MONEY-- BUT ANYWAY-- BY HISTORICAL STANDARDS, "BUT WHY ARE WE WASTING THIS MONEY ON FOREIGNERS?"

AND, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T, AS TRUMP HIMSELF HAS SAID, "WELL, THESE PLACES HAVE BEEN FIGHTING WARS FOREVER."

AND GOD FORBID THAT WE SHOULD ACTUALLY TRY TO STOP THEM FROM FIGHTING THIS TIME.

I HEARD THAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BALKANS WHEN I WAS STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, ACTUALLY, IN THEIR INTERVENTION.

"OH, THEY'VE BEEN KILLING EACH OTHER FOR CENTURIES."

WELL, TO SOME DEGREE, YES.

THERE HAVE OFTEN BEEN LONG STRETCHES WHERE THEY DIDN'T KILL EACH OTHER, AND THEY'RE NOT KILLING EACH OTHER NOW.

AND THAT'S A LOT BETTER EVEN IF THEY DON'T LOVE EACH OTHER THAN ETHNIC CLEANSING.

I MEAN, JIM BAKER SAID IN '92, FAMOUSLY, I THINK IT WAS "WE DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THAT FIGHT" OR SOMETHING, WHICH WAS STUPID.

ARE WE REALLY GONNA LET EUROPE, SOUTHERN EUROPE, OR THE REST OF EUROPE DEGENERATE INTO ETHNIC CLEANSING WHEN FOR A RATHER MODEST EXPENDITURE OF RESOURCES AND EFFORT, WE CAN PREVENT IT?

SO I'M VERY MUCH ON THE INDISPENSABLE NATION SIDE OF THIS DEBATE.

EISENHOWER: RIGHT.

DR. POSEN?

IT'S A COMPLICATED ODYSSEY FROM ONE KIND OF HIGH CONCEPT, INDISPENSABLE NATION, TO A DIFFERENT ONE, AMERICA FIRST.

AND I THINK THERE'S MANY ELEMENTS TO IT.

I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S HAPPENED ABROAD IS THE SHIFT IN POWER SINCE THE END OF THE COLD WAR.

AT THE END OF THE COLD WAR, THE AMERICANS WERE REALLY THE ONLY SUPERPOWER LEFT IN THE WORLD.

REALLY THE ONLY GREAT POWER AT THE TIME.

WE MAY STILL BE THE ONLY SUPER AND GLOBAL POWER, BUT THERE ARE GREAT POWERS OUT THERE IN TWO OR 3 REGIONS OF THE WORLD, WHICH CHANGES THE GAME.

I MEAN, IN MANY COLLECTIVE PROBLEMS.

IT'S NOT JUST THE AMERICANS WHO ARE THE INDISPENSABLE NATION.

ALL THE RICH AND POWERFUL NATIONS ARE INDISPENSABLE FOR THE PURPOSES OF SOLVING THOSE PROBLEMS NOW.

THIS WAS SIMPLY NOT THE CASE-- OR IT WAS NOT AS MUCH THE CASE THEN.

AND THEN THE SECOND MATTER, I THINK, IS THE EFFECT AT HOME.

AND I DO THINK THAT THE INDISPENSABLE NATION RHETORIC, IT ENCAPSULATED A LARGER POLICY THAT YOU ALLOWED FOR THE AMERICANS TO CONSIDER MOST PROBLEMS TO BE THEIRS AND MOST PROBLEMS TO BE SOLUBLE BY US.

IT'S A ODD STATISTIC THAT WE WERE AT WAR MORE OFTEN IN THE POST-COLD WAR WORLD THAN WE WERE DURING THE COLD WAR, AT KINETIC WAR.

THIS IS KIND OF ODD GIVEN HOW SECURE WE ARE, AND THAT ARISES FROM THIS NOTION THAT WE HAD TO SOLVE ALL THESE PROBLEMS.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T READ THE AMERICAN PUBLIC VERY WELL, BUT I THINK IT'S HARD TO FEED PEOPLE A STEADY DIET OF FEAR AND CONFLICT AND WAR FOR DECADES WITHOUT AMERICANS BEGINNING TO SCRATCH THEIR HEADS AND SAYING, "CAN IT REALLY BE TRUE THAT ALL THESE PROBLEMS ARE OURS?"

FLOURNOY: I ALSO THINK, THOUGH, THAT A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW ENGAGED IN THE WORLD WE SHOULD BE IS SORT OF COLORED BY THE EQUATION OF ENGAGEMENT WITH MILITARY INTERVENTION.

AND I THINK THAT'S A MISTAKE.

WE HAVE MADE THE MISTAKE AS A COUNTRY OF CONSISTENTLY UNDERRESOURCING OUR DIPLOMATIC LEVERS, OUR ECONOMIC LEVERS, OUR OTHER "SOFT POWER" INSTRUMENTS, IF YOU WILL.

I'M ALL FOR A STRONG MILITARY FOCUSED ON DETERRENCE AND PREVENTING CONFLICT AND FIGHTING AND WINNING IF WE MUST.

BUT THE TRUTH IS, MOST OF OUR ENGAGEMENT SHOULD BE, IF WE'RE SMART, USING NONMILITARY TOOLS AROUND THE WORLD OR USING THE MILITARY-- OUR MILITARY POSTURE TO MAKE THOSE TOOLS MORE EFFECTIVE.

WE SHOULDN'T BE RUNNING AROUND THE WORLD WILLY-NILLY.

YEAH.

A QUESTION OF, I WOULD SAY, RESOURCES.

LOOK AT WORLD WAR II FIGURES-- A NATION OF 160 MILLION PEOPLE.

OPERATION VICTORY ENVISIONED 330 COMBAT DIVISIONS.

WE MOBILIZED 90 DIVISIONS.

THAT'S 9 TIMES, 10 TIMES THE SIZE OF THE ARMY WE'RE DEPLOYING NOW.

I WOULD SAY THAT, VIEWED IN RELATIVE TERMS, THE AMERICAN APPETITE OR CAPACITY SEEMS TO HAVE DIMINISHED SOMEWHAT.

AND HOW WOULD YOU ACCOUNT FOR THAT?

KRISTOL: OBVIOUSLY, THERE ARE TRADEOFFS AND SO FORTH.

AND WE SHOULD DISCUSS SOME OF THE MORE PARTICULAR ONES.

I ALSO THINK IT'S NOT ULTIMATELY ABOUT A FEW MARGINAL, EVEN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, BUT RATHER ABOUT WHAT THE RIGHT FOREIGN POLICY IS FOR THE COUNTRY.

AND IN THAT RESPECT, IT IS MORE OF A DEBATE ABOUT THE COUNTRY, ITS MEANING, ITS ROLE IN THE WORLD.

IT DOES.

I MEAN, THE COLD WAR, ALL IN, WAS A TIME OF VERY HIGH DEFENSE SPENDING AND THE TIME OF THE FASTEST ECONOMIC GROWTH IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

SO I'M NOT CONVINCED AT ALL THAT ONE TAKES FROM THE OTHER.

ALSO A TIME OF, I THINK WE WOULD AGREE ON THIS, TOO MUCH GROWTH IN THE DOMESTIC GOVERNMENT AND, YOU KNOW, PLENTY OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON HEALTHCARE AND, INCIDENTALLY, CONSIDERABLE PROGRESS ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND OTHER CIVIL LIBERTIES ISSUES, I WOULD SAY.

SO I DON'T EVEN BUY THE ARGUMENT, THOUGH I KNOW IT'S A MORE--IT'S A FAMILIAR ONE AND NOT WITHOUT ELEMENTS OF TRUTH, OBVIOUSLY, THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE FIGHTING THESE WARS, WHETHER BIG OR SMALL, YOU CREATE THE "NATIONAL SECURITY STATE" AND THEN CIVIL LIBERTIES GET IMPINGED.

NOT THAT THEY COULDN'T BE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S AT ALL INEVITABLE, AND I THINK WE'VE DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB, ACTUALLY, SINCE 1919 AND THEN SINCE THE JAPANESE INTERNMENT IN 1940-- IN THE EARLY-- IN WORLD WAR II THAT, YOU KNOW, IN TRYING TO BALANCE MUCH MORE CAREFULLY CIVIL LIBERTIES AND FIGHTING WARS.

SO I AGREE, IT'S VERY MUCH A QUESTION OF WHAT YOU THINK IS GOOD FOR AMERICA, WHAT YOU THINK IS GOOD FOR THE WORLD, WHAT OUR OBLIGATIONS ARE ABROAD, WHAT THE TRADEOFF IS OF A BADLY EXECUTED WAR IN IRAQ.

I COULDN'T AGREE MORE WITH THAT, IN ITS FIRST 3, 4 YEARS, AND NOT INTERVENING IN SYRIA.

I MEAN, THOSE ARE REAL THINGS.

AND IN THAT RESPECT, I WELCOME THE DEBATE.

I VERY MUCH AGREE THAT WE PROBABLY-- THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN TOO MUCH MINDLESSNESS AT ONE POINT, IN ASSUMING WE COULD JUST DO EVERYTHING AND IT WOULD ALL WORK OUT WELL.

AND THE WAY IN WHICH YOU DO IT MATTERS, AS MICHELE KNOWS EXTREMELY WELL, HAVING BEEN THERE.

THE WAY IN WHICH YOU DO IT MATTERS A HECK OF A LOT IN FOREIGN POLICY, NOT JUST THE INTENTION, RIGHT?

EISENHOWER: MICHELE, BILL'S PUT HIS FINGER ON SOMETHING THAT I'D LIKE TO RAISE WITH, WELL, THE PANEL.

BUT THIS IS--ISOLATIONISTS.

THE REASON YOU TRIGGER THIS IS YOU SAY, "WHAT IS THE CORRECT FOREIGN POLICY FOR AMERICA?"

THE MEANING OF OUR COUNTRY.

MEANING.

TO WHAT DEGREE DOES AMERICA FIND MEANING IN ITS FOREIGN POLICY OUTREACH?

LOOK AT THE ISOLATIONISTS.

REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTIES ACTUALLY, IRONICALLY, TAKING DIFFERENT POSITIONS NOW.

DEMOCRATS ARE FAR MORE INTERVENTIONISTS.

THE REPUBLICANS NOW, ANTI-INTERVENTION, NOT, SEEMINGLY, RESPONDING TO ACTUAL CONDITIONS OVERSEAS BUT ADJUSTING THEMSELVES TO A DIFFERENT PERCEPTION AS TO THE WAY CIRCUMSTANCES TODAY DEFINE THIS COUNTRY AND OUR MEANING.

WHAT?

WHAT-- I GUESS I THINK WE'RE IN A PERIOD WHERE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN FOREIGN POLICY AND DOMESTIC POLICY SHOULD BE ALMOST ZERO IN THE SENSE THAT IF YOU THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE LOOK AROUND THE WORLD, WE SEE A RISING CHINA, WE SEE A RESURGENT RUSSIA, WE SEE THE RETURN OF GREAT POWER COMPETITION.

MOST OF THAT COMPETITION IS GONNA BE ECONOMIC.

IT MAY BE SOMEWHAT IDEOLOGICAL IN TERMS OF AUTHORITARIAN SYSTEMS VERSUS DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS.

THERE IS, OF COURSE, A MILITARY COMPONENT.

BUT IF THAT'S THE CORRECT DIAGNOSIS, THE NUMBER ONE THING WE CAN DO TO HAVE A STRONG ABILITY TO SHAPE THE WORLD AND PROTECT OUR OWN ECONOMIC PROSPERITY AND SECURITY IS TO INVEST IN THE DRIVERS OF AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS AT HOME: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, HIGHER EDUCATION, 21st-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE, SMART IMMIGRATION POLICY THAT ATTRACTS AND TRIES TO KEEP THE BEST TALENT FROM AROUND THE WORLD.

AND SO THERE'S AN INCREDIBLE OVERLAP AND SYNERGY BETWEEN SMART DOMESTIC POLICY THAT'S GOOD FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND OUR ECONOMY AND EXACTLY THE KIND OF INVESTMENT WE NEED TO MAKE TO BE ABLE TO SHAPE AND DETER AND PROTECT OUR INTERESTS OVERSEAS.

AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD CAPITALIZE ON.

IT'S SORT OF A MOONSHOT MOMENT, AND I DON'T SEE THE LEADERSHIP AND THE VISION TO REALLY CAPITALIZE ON THAT.

AT THE FOUNDING, WE DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO INTERVENE IN EUROPE.

WE NOW HAVE THE POWER TO INTERVENE ABROAD.

AND HAVING THAT POWER POSES CHOICES, DOESN'T IT?

IN OTHER WORDS, BILL... YEAH.

I... W. BUSH, YEAH, 2005, SAYS THAT IT IS THE MISSION OF AMERICA TO END TYRANNY IN THE WORLD.

AND I THINK THAT THAT'S PROBABLY A STATEMENT OF SOME NOTION THAT STEMS FROM HIS IDEA OF WHAT AMERICA IS.

THAT'S NOT A FOREIGN POLICY, IS IT?

OR IS IT?

NO.

I MEAN, IT'S AN ASPIRATION.

IT'S NOT THAT DIFFERENT FROM WHAT TRUMAN SAID IN OTHER THINGS.

MAYBE I WOULD HAVE SAID IT WITH SLIGHT QUALIFICATIONS.

MOVE TOWARDS REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF TYRANNY AND HELPING THE FORCES OF FREEDOM WHERE POSSIBLE, I THINK, IS PROBABLY MORE LIKE WHAT TRUMAN AND OTHERS SAID.

BUT I THINK IT IS, THEN, FUNDAMENTALLY A CHOICE OF WHETHER YOU THINK WE CAN TAKE GUIDANCE FROM CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE FOUNDING, I WOULD SAY, THAT HAVE VERY MUCH THE VIEW THAT WE SHOULD STAY AWAY FROM THE OLD WORLD, OR WHETHER ONE TAKES GUIDANCE FROM THE FIRST HALF OF THE 20th CENTURY, WHICH FOR ME, AT LEAST, ARGUES VERY STRONGLY THAT IN THE MODERN WORLD, AT LEAST, ONE--WE ARE BETTER OFF, AND, CERTAINLY, OUR FRIENDS AND ALLIES AND THE FORCES OF FREEDOM AND DECENCY AROUND THE WORLD ARE BETTER OFF WITH A MUCH MORE ACTIVE U.S.

ENGAGEMENT WHICH, OBVIOUSLY, MOST OF THE TIME IS MOSTLY DIPLOMATIC, ECONOMIC, AND SO FORTH.

I VERY MUCH AGREE THAT WE SHOULD BOLSTER THE ELEMENTS OF SOFT POWER AS WELL AS OF HARD POWER AND IN BETWEEN FORMS OF POWER.

I THINK THEY TEND TO GO TOGETHER, AND ONE NEEDS TO BACK UP THE OTHER.

THAT'S, YOU KNOW, A LEGITIMATE DEBATE ABOUT AMERICA AND ABOUT THE WORLD.

AND SOME OF IT HAS TO BE ABOUT WHAT THE ACTUAL WORLD IS LIKE IN TERMS OF TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONS, AND FORCES OUT THERE.

AND SOME OF IT IS ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD LIKE OUR COUNTRY TO BE LIKE.

THEY ARE BOTH LEGITIMATE THINGS TO WEIGH, OBVIOUSLY.

EISENHOWER: WELL, YEAH.

DR. POSEN.

IN FACT, I WAS THIS FAR AWAY FROM PRESIDENT CLINTON IN 1995, WHEN HE SAYS, "I CANNOT DRAW A LINE BETWEEN DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS."

IS THIS SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES US TO PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS ABROAD AND TO ESSENTIALLY EXTEND OUR WAY OR DEFEND OUR WAY OR PROJECT OUR WAY IN SOME WAY IN THE WORLD CONSISTENT WITH THE WAY WE CHOOSE TO LIVE AT HOME?

WELL, I THINK IT'S FINE TO BE EXEMPLARS OF THOSE VALUES ABROAD AND EVEN TO WORK FOR THEM DIPLOMATICALLY, BUT THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION HAS USUALLY COME-- AT LEAST IN RECENT YEARS-- HAS COME BACK TO WHETHER OR NOT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE WAGING WAR FOR THESE PROJECTS.

NOW, THE UNITED STATES IS INHERENTLY AN EXTREMELY SECURE COUNTRY.

AND WHEN THE UNITED STATES WENT ABROAD IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 20th CENTURY AND STAYED ABROAD DURING THE COLD WAR, IT WAS BECAUSE THERE WERE PALPABLE THREATS TO AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY, THREATS THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR BIG POWER SHIFTS IN THE WORLD THAT WOULD CHANGE THE WAY WE LIVED IN THIS COUNTRY IF THEY OCCURRED, RIGHT?

I SUPPORTED MOST OF THOSE THINGS.

I WASN'T ALIVE FOR ALL OF THEM, RIGHT?

THE QUESTION NOW IS, TO WHAT OTHER THINGS SHOULD WE, YOU KNOW, COMMIT AMERICAN MILITARY POWER?

AND SHOULD YOU COMMIT IT TO THE IDEA THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SPREAD DEMOCRACY?

AND I THINK WE CAN'T FOR 3 REASONS.

I THINK WE DON'T HAVE VERY GOOD CAUSE-EFFECT KNOWLEDGE ON HOW TO CAUSE DEMOCRACY ABROAD; TWO--NATIONALISM'S A POWERFUL FORCE, AND PEOPLE DON'T WELCOME YOU WHEN YOU SHOW UP IN THEIR COUNTRY TO HELP SPREAD SOME OF YOUR DEMOCRACY THERE; AND 3--AND THIS IS AN ODD PROBLEM-- WHEN OTHERS GET THE IDEA THAT THE AMERICANS CAN BE MOBILIZED FOR THIS CAUSE, THEN THEY WILL TRY TO MOBILIZE YOU.

AND BY DEFINITION, WE'RE ONLY GOING TO BE MOBILIZED FOR SOME OF THOSE CAUSES.

AND OTHERS ARE GOING TO TAKE RISKS THAT THEY THINK WE'RE GOING TO SECURE THEM FOR, AND THOSE RISKS ARE TRAGIC THAT WE CAN'T HELP EVERY REBEL GROUP.

SO WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF ATTEMPTING THESE KINDS OF PROJECTS.

EISENHOWER: BUT CAN WE HELP ANY?

CAN YOU NAME A PLACE WHERE AMERICAN INTERVENTION TODAY CAN BE FRUITFULLY MOUNTED TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

MILITARY INTERVENTION?

YEAH, MILITARY.

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

WE TRULY APPRECIATE THE POINTS OF VIEW THAT YOU HAVE BROUGHT TO THIS DISCUSSION.

I'D LIKE TO BRING IT BACK TO THE AMERICAN ROLE IN THE WORLD, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT, TO A LARGE DEGREE, WE CHOOSE.

CURRENTLY, WE'RE LOOKING INWARD.

THE SLOGAN, THE CATCHPHRASE TODAY IS AMERICA FIRST, WHICH IS A REVIVAL OF A PREWAR SLOGAN IN 1941 THAT MOBILIZED AMERICA TO AVOID INTERVENTION IN WORLD WAR II.

WHEN WE BEGIN TO CONCENTRATE ON OUR PROBLEMS, I DON'T KNOW WHERE SHEDDING INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS AND AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE NECESSARILY ENDS.

AMERICA IS SAFE.

AMERICA IS SELF-SUFFICIENT.

DOES AMERICA SEEK A ROLE IN THE WORLD FOR ITS OWN SAKE?

IS THERE SOME ASPECT OF AMERICA THAT REQUIRES US TO CLAIM A ROLE IN THE WORLD THAT WILL WITHSTAND, I WOULD SAY, THE CURRENT TREND RIGHT NOW TOWARD AMERICA FIRST?

I DON'T KNOW HOW IN A GLOBALIZED ECONOMY WITH INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CHAINS, THE MAJORITY OF AMERICAN JOBS DEPENDENT ON TRADE, AND, YOU KNOW, HOW WE PULL BACK AND NOT PARTICIPATE ON A DAILY BASIS IN SETTING THE CONDITIONS FOR A MORE LEVEL AND FAIR PLAYING FIELD FOR AMERICANS.

IN A WORLD OF, YOU KNOW, WHERE THERE'S TERRORISM.

WHERE THERE ARE NUCLEAR THREATS TO US, WHERE THERE'S ALL KINDS OF OTHER INSTABILITY, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE ASSURE AMERICANS THAT THEY'RE SAFE AT HOME IF OUR POSTURE IS TO WAIT UNTIL THE THREATS COME AND STRIKE US IN AMERICA RATHER THAN DEALING WITH SOME--AT LEAST MANAGING SOME OF THEM AT DISTANCE.

I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD GIVE UP THE UNIQUE HISTORICAL STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE OF THE ALLIANCES WE HAVE.

WE CAN MAKE THEM BETTER BURDEN SHARING.

WE CAN MAKE THEM MORE EQUAL.

WE CAN MAKE THEM MORE RELEVANT AND ADAPTED TO TODAY.

BUT, BOY, I MEAN, I BET CHINA AND RUSSIA, THEY WOULD LOVE TO HAVE OUR ALLIANCE SYSTEM.

THEY DON'T HAVE IT.

THAT'S A HUGE INSTRUMENT, A HUGE SOURCE OF ADVANTAGE FOR US TO TRY TO BALANCE AND CONSTRAIN THE NEGATIVE ACTIONS OF SOME OF THESE RISING POWERS.

EISENHOWER: SO THESE ARE ADVANTAGES.

BILL, IMPERATIVE?

IS THERE AN IMPERATIVE ALONG WITH THAT ADVANTAGE?

KRISTOL: I MEAN, I THINK IT'S VERY MUCH IN OUR INTEREST.

IT'S HARD TO PROVE THAT ANYTHING IS AN IMPERATIVE.

AND I SUPPOSE WE COULD, AND MAYBE WE WILL, EXPERIMENT WITH A VERY DIFFERENT PATH THAN WE'VE GONE DOWN FOR MOST OF THE LAST, I THINK, 75 YEARS, 70 YEARS.

I GUESS MORE LIKE, WELL, 74 NOW, 70 IF IT ENDS IN 2015, 1945-2015.

PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE COLD WAR AND THE POST-COLD WAR ERA, AND THOSE WERE, OF COURSE, DIFFERENT IN VERY MAJOR WAYS, BUT I THINK THERE'S ALSO BEEN A LOT OF CONTINUITY IN AMERICA'S VIEW OF ITSELF.

THAT'S WHY THE INDISPENSABLE NATION WAS--MADELEINE ALBRIGHT SAID THAT POST-COLD WAR, BUT IT WAS TRUE ON THINGS THAT WERE SAID DURING THE COLD WAR.

I GUESS I WOULD JUST-- I HAVE THE SORT OF SIMPLE-MINDED VIEW THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WORKED OUT PRETTY WELL.

HAS WORKED OUT PRETTY WELL COMPARED TO PREVIOUS EPOCHS OF WORLD HISTORY, LIKE THE PRECEDING 50 YEARS, FOR EXAMPLE, AND I'M NOT WILLING TO RISK-- OR I'M VERY WARY OF SORT OF-- IT'S NOT AN IMPERATIVE, I GUESS, BUT JUST AS A MATTER OF ACTUALLY WHAT'S BETTER FOR US AND FOR THE WORLD.

AND, AGAIN, THE OCEANS ARE GREAT TO HAVE, BUT ARE THEY THE SAME WITH AIR POWER AND THEN WITH NUCLEAR POWER AND THEN WITH CYBER AND THEN WITH THE KINDS OF THREATS?

IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT-- YOU KNOW, I AGREE THAT ONE CAN GO TOO FAR IN THE OTHER DIRECTION AND SUDDENLY THINK ONE HAS TO MANAGE EVERY PROBLEM EVERYWHERE BECAUSE ANY OF THEM COULD EVENTUALLY IMPINGE ON US.

THAT WOULD BE OVER-ARGUING IT.

BUT I GUESS I WOULD PREFER TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF A LITTLE MORE-- CONSIDERABLY MORE ENGAGEMENT AND CONSIDERABLY MORE STRENGTH, BOTH HARD STRENGTH AND SOFT POWER.

DR. POSEN.

WELL, IN A VERY GENERAL SENSE, I THINK WE'RE INTERESTED IN GREAT POWER PEACE, WE'RE INTERESTED IN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EXCHANGE, AND WE'RE INTERESTED IN COOPERATION TO DEAL WITH COLLECTIVE BADS, SUCH AS CLIMATE CHANGE AND OTHER SUCH THINGS.

THE QUESTION IS, SORT OF, REALLY, IN A WAY, HOW DO WE GET THERE?

AND AS I SEE THE WORLD, TRYING TO DO THOSE THINGS IN A WORLD WHERE THERE'S 2 OR 3 OR 4 OTHER GREAT POWERS IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT FROM TRYING TO DO THOSE THINGS IN A WORLD WHERE THERE'S ONE.

AND I THINK--AND IT'S A CONTROVERSIAL POSITION-- THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS REALLY TRIED TO ESTABLISH A HEGEMONIC POSITION IN THE WORLD AND OTHER REGIONS, INCLUDING EUROPE.

AND THIS MAKES IT HARD TO COOPERATE WITH OTHER GREAT POWERS.

SO MY OWN VIEW IS THAT WE NEED TO DO A LITTLE BIT LESS OF TELLING OTHER PEOPLE HOW IT'S GOING TO BE AND DEFINING THE SECURITY OF OURSELVES AND OUR ALLIES IN WAYS THAT DISADVANTAGE OTHER GREAT POWERS AND TRY AND FIND SOME IN-BETWEENS, SOME MEETING OF THE MINDS.

AND THIS WAS THE WAY GREAT POWER POLITICS WAS PRACTICED IN THE LATE 19th CENTURY.

IT WORKED PRETTY WELL.

IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE SECOND GREAT GLOBALIZATION.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE SOMEWHAT LESS MILITARIZED FOR US, AND IT REQUIRES SOME MORE RESPONSIBILITY FROM OTHERS, BUT I THINK AMERICAN STATESMEN CAN DO THIS IF THEY WANTED TO, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THEY SHOULD GO.

EISENHOWER: WELL, WE'RE HAVING A VERY FRUITFUL, STIMULATING, HISTORIC CONVERSATION IN THIS COUNTRY ABOUT AMERICA'S ROLE IN THE WORLD, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO IT TODAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

FLOURNOY: THANK YOU.

IT'S A DEBATE AS OLD AS OUR COUNTRY.

ONE SIDE SEES AMERICAN POWER AS A SHIELD AGAINST THE NEED TO EXPEND GREAT BLOOD AND TREASURE IN THE HISTORICALLY MESSY AND UGLY AFFAIRS OF THE REST OF THE WORLD, BELIEVING THAT IN SO DOING FOR ANY REASON BEYOND OUR OWN CLEAR AND VITAL INTERESTS, WE RISK LOSING THAT WHICH IS MOST SPECIAL ABOUT AMERICAN CIVILIZATION.

THE OTHER SIDE BELIEVES IT IS QUITE SIMPLY AN OBLIGATION, BOTH MORALLY AND IN TERMS OF KEEPING AMERICA SAFE IN A JUNGLE-LIKE WORLD FOR THE UNITED STATES TO BE THE GUARANTOR OF PEACE, OPEN COMMERCE, AND DEMOCRACY EVERYWHERE.

ADDED TO THIS TRADITIONAL SPLIT ARE THE VIEWS OF INTERNATIONALISTS WHO STRESS MULTILATERAL, EVEN GLOBAL, PROBLEMS AND THE NEED FOR COOPERATIVE SOLUTIONS.

THE ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP SHOCKED THE AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT, BOTH ITS LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE WINGS, AND REOPENED THE DEBATE ABOUT AMERICA'S ROLE IN THE WORLD.

OF COURSE, WE LEAVE IT TO YOU TO DRAW YOUR OWN NOW MORE INFORMED CONCLUSIONS.

FOR "THE WHOLE TRUTH," I'M DAVID EISENHOWER.

THANKS ONCE AGAIN FOR WATCHING.

ANNOUNCER: THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY...

THE CHARLES KOCH FOUNDATION, AMETEK, CNX RESOURCES, BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, AND BY...