Bush administration should implement new foreign policy

America has borne the burden for the entire free world for 57 years. During the Cold War, since America alone could counter imperial Communist ambitions, we stationed our troops all over the world and went deeply in debt paying for defense programs. But democracy itself was at stake, so it was fitting that we paid a high price.\nThe Cold War is over. Communists no longer threaten industrialized democracies, but America still has troops stationed on every inhabited continent. President Bush proposes to spend over $2 trillion over five years on defense, deepening the national debt. Our allies are now strong yet they do not make investments in their own security -- our 2003 defense budget is greater than the next nine nations combined. The world looks to us for leadership, but often resents our dominance. \nThere are significant questions on the horizon regarding America's role in the world. We must begin to examine whether the road ahead is consistent with our national goals and values.\nSince 1992, it has been U.S. policy to prevent, with force if necessary, another great power from emerging, ensuring American dominance ("uni-polarity"). We have been a policeman and a parent for the free (and not so free) world. There are major problems inherent in this approach.\nThe uni-polar model limits America's diplomatic, economic and military options. It commits us to being all things to all people. Uni-polarity deprives other nations of the very self-determination we believe in so deeply. Indeed, nations the world over have expressed uneasiness about America's pervasive military presence and often work in concert to balance our power. As Bernard Schwarz and Christopher Layne forcefully argued in a January Atlantic Monthly article, our continued insistence on dominance may make us less secure. \nAn alternative to the hegemon strategy would be for America to allow other powers to arise and to maintain a balance of power among them. Schwarz and Layne call this a "multi-polar" paradigm. This strategy has distinct advantages.\nIn a multi-polar world, it would not fall squarely on America's shoulders to prop up brutal totalitarian regimes like Saudi Arabia to protect allied interests in oil. Our allies (who import, as a percentage, more oil from the Middle East than us) would need to assume, or share, the responsibilities and risks of protecting their interests. Reduced international military deployments would allow us to allocate resources to debt reduction, tax cuts or domestic programs. A multi-polar world could reinvigorate international institutions and agreements and, perhaps most importantly, free us to stand more consistently for our core values: democracy, human rights and self-determination.\nThe U.S. must not weaken itself, but it shouldn't discourage other nations from becoming powerful. Though their interests may not always be congruent with our own, they can share with us the burden of maintaining global stability -- and that is very much in our interest. \nMulti-polarity seems isolationist, but it is not. On the contrary, if America insists that our allies begin to assume their share of the burden of protecting the free world, it is plausible that it would lead to greater international engagement. \nWe have lots of problems at home, but they will become more manageable if someone were sharing the load abroad. It will take time to arrive at a consensus and even longer to implement new policy, but a public re-evaluation of our current policies needs to begin.