Bush’s Choice: Athens or Sparta

Abstract

continues to be defined by a phrase, by a reality, and by a metaphor. The phrase, post-Cold War world, harks back to a familiar past, its vagueness redeemed by its suggestion that the current state of affairs is interim and temporary, that another organizing structure will eventually emerge. The reality is the overwhelming global fact of American power after the implosion of its adversary of the previous half-century. Since the Soviet Union had been a superpower, another and more awesome term had to be coined to define the unprecedented combination of military, economic, technological, political, and cultural predominance that America achieved in the 1990s. France's foreign minister, Hubert Vedrine, obliged; the reality of the past decade has been hyperpuissance America as hyperpower. The metaphor that best expressed this, even before Vedrine coined his neologism, was that of the United States as the modern equivalent of ancient Rome. But this transitional period is now drawing to a close, and the contours of the real aftermath of the Cold War may already be discerned. Despite its military predominance, America will have great difficulty in maintaining the political will and the financial means, and cannot guarantee the technological monopolies, that might indefinitely sustain its lonely eminence. Regional challengers are already flexing their muscles. To manage what appears likely to become a turbulent political environment, America must look beyond the simplistic metaphor of itself as the modern Rome. It may find that its choices for a sustainable grand strategy are best illustrated and defined by two other models from classical times. The United States in the twenty-first century must decide whether it wants to play the role of Athens or of Sparta. Athens would be more congenial, and would probably come more naturally to a free trading and self-indulgent democracy with a robust belief in the merits and survivability of its own culture and a strong naval tradition. But there is much in the American political and military culture that leans to the fortress mentality and uncompromising attitudes of a modern Sparta. America as Athens would be extrovert and open, encouraging the growth of democracies and trading partners. America as Sparta would be introspective and defensive, tending to protectionism, and determined to maintain military superiority at all costs. America as Athens would seek to work with allies and partners in collaborative ventures with a common purpose, from global warming treaties to international legal structures. America as Sparta would be unilateralist, suspicious of the erosions of national sovereignty that might flow from cooperation with other states, and would prefer clients and satellites to allies that might some day challenge Sparta's primacy. The metaphor of Athens and Sparta presents the two extremes of policy, and no U.S. administration is likely in current circumstances to adopt so fully the attitudes of one that it abandons altogether the other. The most Spartan-minded administration may embrace free trade, from a farsighted