The US’s national security document of 2002 is a partial answer to the global challenges of terrorism and weapons proliferation. Charles Pena’s critique, by contrast, recommends a disengagement from the world that would entail even greater danger for the homeland. The real US need is to articulate a strategic doctrine that puts military pre-emption in the service of wise politics, alliance-building, and – eventually – a new understanding of international law.

Opposition to the Bush administration’s strategy on Iraq is growing both inside America and around the world. Criticism of its pre-emptive approach tends to be scornful of its intellectual framework and strategic thinking. But a serious case has been made for the exercise of American power - notably by Philip Bobbitt, author of “The Shield of Achilles”, who was Senior Director for Strategic Planning at the National Security Council in Clinton’s White House. openDemocracy met with Philip Bobbitt and Paul Hirst, author of “Globalisation in Question”, to hear them debate the justifications for America’s independence from international constraint, and wider issues of world politics and economic development emerging from the end of the cold war. This encounter provides the starting point for openDemocracy’s debate on American power & the world. Bobbitt’s epic study “The Shield of Achilles” was written before 11 September 2001, but it anticipates the rise of terrorism and al-Qaida. He has provided openDemocracy with a summary of his argument, while Paul Hirst assesses the merits of the book.

Philip Bobbitt talks about his book The Shield of Achilles.