Like the much-reviled neo-conservatives, the liberal internationalists too believe that American power can and must be deployed to achieve specific political objectives. If Bush gambled on Iraq, Obama’s liberals are rearing to have a go at Sudan and “save” its Darfur region. “Arrogance of power” is a trait that afflicts America’s liberal internationalists as acutely as it does the neo-conservatives.

Fourth, the negative consequences of recent American adventurism around the world should tell Obama that doing less might actually mean more for the US. But the liberal internationalists, who will populate the next administration, are getting ready to pursue their favourite lost causes.

The arms controllers want an early implementation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and negotiate a universal moratorium on the production of fissile materials. Some of them want to abolish nuclear weapons altogether. The list goes on from building peace in West Asia to resolving the Kashmir dispute, from rejuvenating multilateralism to rebuilding failed states.

Leadership is about defining priorities. Those who try to do everything achieve nothing. Given the current US preoccupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is unlikely if the US has the resources and energy to chase the whole laundry list of the world’s problems.

Fifth, leadership is about delegation. An America that sheds many of its secondary burdens will be better placed to shape the larger security architecture of the world. An America that cuts some geopolitical slack to other powers and acts as the balancer among them will create more options for itself. If the US continues to jump in first everywhere, Obama will invite as much resentment as Bush did.

... contd.