Podcast Summary: American Foreign Policy – Retrench or Expand?

Podcast: The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast
Episode: American Foreign Policy: Retrench or Expand? (Lecture 8)
Date: October 15, 2025
Hosts: Jeremiah Regan (“A”), Juan Davalos (“B”)
Main Lecturer: (Unattributed, referred to as “C”)

Overview

This episode examines the direction of American foreign policy after the Cold War, focusing on the central question that shaped decades of decision-making: Should the U.S. retrench and reduce its global commitments, or expand its influence in the new "unipolar" world? The episode traces the debate between interventionist and restrainer camps through the presidencies of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. It highlights the ideological and practical underpinnings of U.S. interventions, especially in the Middle East, and explores the long-term implications of these policies.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The End of the Cold War and the Unipolar Moment

Timestamps: 00:22 – 03:59

• Dissolution of the Soviet Union left the U.S. as the “one and only superpower,” shaping a world order where America had outsized influence in global affairs.
• Initial Post-Cold War Choices:
  • Many argued for a reduction of U.S. global commitments, advocating a partial return to pre-WWII isolationism but not full withdrawal (“retrench” camp).
  • Others, citing Charles Krauthammer’s “Unipolar Moment” (Foreign Affairs), called for the U.S. to use its unique power to maintain and expand global leadership (“expand” or “interventionist” camp).
  • The world shifted from “bipolar” (U.S. vs. USSR) to “unipolar” (U.S. alone).

“A world once divided into two armed camps now recognizes one sole and preeminent power, the United States of America.” (C, 10:37)

2. Doctrine & Ideals: American Exceptionalism vs. Realism

Timestamps: 01:04 – 02:47

• Tension in Founding Principles:
  • The U.S. Founders’ universalism (all men are created equal) was often misread as a license to impose democracy globally.
  • Practical application and prudence were stressed: imposing American-style governance in lands with different traditions, such as Iraq, often failed due to cultural and historical differences.
• Federalist II and John Jay: Emphasized that self-governance worked in America because of unique historical and cultural factors.

“You can’t just translate the Federalist Papers into a foreign language and turn a foreign people into Americans.” (A, 01:30)

3. Neoconservatives vs. Realists

Timestamps: 08:02 – 10:30

• Republican Split in Early 90s:
  • Neoconservatives: Advocated maintaining and asserting U.S. global power, particularly during the unipolar moment.
  • Realists (e.g., James Baker): Preferred restraint and skepticism toward large interventions.
• Policy Documents & Bureaucratic Infighting:
  • Leaked Pentagon policy documents reflected neocon ambitions, later repudiated by the George H.W. Bush administration amid controversy.

“You leak it to the New York Times, of course. That’s what you do. And that’s exactly what happened with this document.” (C, 09:40)

4. The Persian Gulf & Middle East Focus

Timestamps: 12:05 – 15:36

• Gulf War as Defining Foreign Policy Event:
  • After Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the U.S. led an international coalition (First Gulf War), stopping short of regime change in Iraq.
  • Middle East Policy: Longstanding U.S. interests—protection of oil flows (Strategic Hormuz Strait) and security of Israel—dominated this era.

“The United States and Saudi Arabia have been allies, with ups and downs, to be sure, but basically allies.” (C, 13:47)

• Israeli-Palestinian & Arab Relations:
  • Ongoing efforts for regional peace, including landmark deals like the Camp David Accords and recent normalization agreements.
  • “Fifty years later, there still is no resolution to this issue.” (C, 16:38)

5. Clinton Years: Peace Dividend and Humanitarian Interventions

Timestamps: 20:13 – 24:57

• Peace Dividend:
  • Campaign rhetoric promised to refocus from defense to domestic investment (“peace dividend”).
  • Reality: Continued military and humanitarian interventions in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo.

“It’s safe to say that if you voted for Clinton on foreign policy grounds, … what you thought you were getting was someone who was going to focus on domestic affairs and do a lot less overseas. Well, it didn’t exactly turn out that way.” (C, 21:41)

• Somalia (Black Hawk Down): Raised debate on U.S. moral obligations vs. national interests.

6. Rise of Terrorism in the 1990s

Timestamps: 25:30 – 27:12

• Major Terrorist Attacks: 1993 WTC bombing, Khobar Towers, U.S. embassy bombings, USS Cole.
• Clinton’s Missed Opportunities:
  • Multiple attempts to target Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, some opportunities missed or hesitated, still a matter of controversy.

“It later emerged that … the Clinton administration had more than one plausible chance to strike bin Laden and didn’t take them.” (C, 26:31)

7. George W. Bush & the War on Terror

Timestamps: 27:30 – 37:30

• From Humble Foreign Policy to Global Intervention:
  • Initial avoidance of “nation building.”
  • 9/11 attacks caused a decisive shift—settled debate in favor of interventionists.
• War in Afghanistan & Iraq:
  • Intervention to topple Taliban; extended conflict aimed at building democracy.
  • The “Bush Doctrine”: Democracy promotion abroad and preventative/preemptive war against regimes suspected of harboring terrorism.

“The goal of American policy will be the ending of tyranny in our world.” (George W. Bush, cited by C, 34:16)

• Preemption vs. Prevention:
  • The Bush administration blurred the line, justifying invasion of Iraq despite lack of imminent threat.

“Even the most powerful nation cannot end tyranny in our world. That’s like saying, you’re going to end death or end sickness or end suffering.” (C, 34:41)

• Unintended Consequences:
  • Decades-long wars, immense cost, and uncertain success.
  • Attempted transformation of hostile societies through regime change did not achieve intended results.

8. Continuity Across Administrations

• Obama’s Foreign Policy:
  • Despite campaign pledges for restraint, actual policy was similar to predecessor, reflecting persistent institutional and geopolitical pressures.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Universal Rights and Prudence:

  “Politicians took the principles of the Founding but didn’t look at the practices and application. … Trying to apply it [the Declaration] without doing due diligence on the circumstances that prudence, as the Declaration says, dictates we look at.”
  — Jeremiah Regan (“A”), 01:40

• Policy Leaks in Washington:

  “Well, I’ll tell you the Washington way. You leak it to the New York Times, of course. … And that’s exactly what happened with this document.”
  — (C), 09:40

• On the Bush Doctrine:

  “The goal of American policy will be the ending of tyranny in our world.”
  — George W. Bush, cited by (C), 34:16
  “The American founders would say … you’re crazy. That’s impossible. Even the most powerful nation cannot end tyranny in our world.”
  — (C), 34:41

• The Nature of Preemption:

  “My argument is that what the Bush administration did was blur the difference between prevention and preemption. … They called it preemption to make it acceptable to global public opinion and to argue that it was enshrined in international law.”
  — (C), 36:10

Important Timestamps by Theme

• Post-Cold War Dilemmas: 03:59 – 12:05
• Republican Policy Debates: 08:02 – 10:30
• Middle East & Gulf War: 12:05 – 19:50
• Clinton and Humanitarian Interventions: 20:13 – 24:57
• Rise of Terrorism: 25:30 – 27:12
• Bush Doctrine and Iraq/Afghanistan Wars: 27:30 – 37:30
• Continuity into Obama Era: 37:30 – 39:56

Conclusion

The episode delivers a nuanced account of American foreign policy evolution from the end of the Cold War through the Bush and early Obama administrations. The core narrative explores the tension between the ideals of promoting democracy and the limitations of history, culture, and prudential governance. The long shadow of the “unipolar moment” and the legacy of intervention versus restraint remain unresolved, foreshadowing persistent challenges in present-day American foreign policy.