American Foreign Policy Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics -- Joseph S. Nye

What are the strengths of Nye's arguments?

By suggesting that a strategy of "soft power" (using America's substantial strength of influence, international collaborative coalitions, and non-lethal approaches to persuasion) is preferable to storming into a nation such as was the case with the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 Nye certainly has attempted to stir up the waters in America's current political scene. This is one clear strong point of his argument: simply the fact that he wrote a book which presents an intelligent, well-thought-out alternative to the Bush Administration's approach to "fighting terrorism." Nye's position is that soft power (" ... getting others to want the outcomes that you want -- co-opts people rather than coerces them" page 5) is more a matter of getting people "to buy into your values" (5) than pushing them, or bullying them into believing what you believe.

Since the Bush approach is basically one of unilateralism (go it alone if we must) and hegemony ("preponderant influence or authority over others" according to Merriam-Webster Online), e.g., putting together a coalition of a handful of allies to invade and occupy Iraq, which is contrary to most American military engagements, an opposing view (Nye's viewpoint) is healthy. And since the Bush invasion of Iraq was based on what the public now knows were questionable claims (that Saddam Hussein was pursuing nuclear weapons development and had already produced weapons of mass destruction) -- without the blessing of the United Nations -- there needs to be a counterpoint to that policy. Why?

The answer lies in the fact that the American political system is based on an honest dialogue between those who are engaged in the machinery of government. This nation is strong because those on both sides of the political discussion are free to criticize and present alternative ideas. And frankly, the Nye approach to resolving the issue of Saddam's threat to the Middle East -- albeit idealistic and perhaps not entirely practical -- looks reasonable now that the war has not gone well, indeed...

There would seem to be no escape for the United States, nearly 1,500 U.S. troops have been killed, America has lost credibility and prestige around the world and the Bush policy is fast losing ground in the U.S. public opinion polls.
What are the weaknesses of Nye's arguments?

Nye's book reads more like philosophy than prospective policy. At times his narrative sounds more like Plato -- or even "Dr. Phil" -- than the grizzled political veteran he is (Nye was Chairman of the National Intelligence Council and Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Clinton Administration; currently he is Dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and has written numerous books on international politics, such as The Paradox of American Power). For example, on page 5, he equates the use of "soft power" on the world's troubled and violent political scene with "a relationship or marriage." Power, he writes, "does not necessarily reside with the larger partner [in a relationship], but in the mysterious chemistry of attraction." We are all "familiar with the power of attraction and seduction," he asserts, adding that "political leaders have long understood the power that comes from attraction."

Yes, indeed, politicians understand that folksy, family-friendly commercials can they them elected because voters are attracted to "feel-good" images. But politicians in 2005 also understand that American voters in the post-9/11 era want their leaders to take a tough stand against "terrorism" -- wherever, whomsoever, and however the president at that time tells them it is wise to attack. For a politician to vote against money Bush asks for (for "the fight on terrorism") is near political suicide. He or she will be called "unpatriotic" next election period -- and therefore, if Nye's arguments are perceived as weak, then they in…