I read Robert Kagan's essay "Superpowers Don't Get To Retire" with an eventual blog post in mind, likely one that would attempt to rebut Kagan's latest call for greater American military action in the world, including dangerous neighborhoods like Syria and Ukraine. But I think that those of you who know me know where I stand on that and for those of you who don't (Hi!) I have to admit that my anti-war arguments are not particularly novel.

Besides, it is a really good essay, even if you disagree with its conclusion.  The guy knows his history and we he writes well.  He is also forthcoming about his assumptions about human nature and politics.  This is important because President Obama listens to Kagan and so does Hillary Clinton. By thisI do not mean that they do what Kagan says to do, I mean that he has a voice in the conversation and that you do not. I think he's probably fine with that.

The first thing I underlined in his essay was:

"Unless Americans can be led back to an understanding of their enlightened self-interest, to see again how their fate is entangled with that of the world, then the prospects for a peaceful twenty-first century in which Americans and American principles can thrive will be bleak."

He makes frequent reference to the importance of public opinion and buy-in throughout the piece, but his view is that it is something you earn or lead, not something for leaders to necessarily follow.  We're definitely in the realm of expertise over populism here, and I think we can all admit that has its advantages in foreign policy an its disadvantages for members of society who might be sent into harm's way.

Now, more about what this effort thinks about his fellow evolved primates and the world we inhabit:

"They (contemporary Americans) favor the liberal world order insofar as they can see how it touches them.  But they are no longer prepared to sacrifice very much to uphold it."

Laid bare, that might sound harsher than Kagan intends.  But I believe he does detect something feckless in the American psyche and I think this coincides with his over-all worldview.

"...the more power a nation has, the more it is likely to act in ways that cannot be squared with Christian or Enlightenment morality."

Now, we're getting somewhere:

"The liberal world order was never put to a popular vote. It was not bequethed by God. It is not the endpoint of human progress, despite what our Enlightenment education tells us.  It is a temporary and transient world order that suits the needs, interests, and above all the ideals of a large and powerful collection of people, but it does not necessarily fit the needs and desires of everyone."

And then:

"A liberal world order, like any world order, is something that is imposed, and as much as we in the West might wish it to be imposed by superior virtue, it is generally imposed by superior power."

To believe otherwise, Kagan remarks a few times in the essay, is to indulge "escapism," which is something you would expect the Americans he has described to do.

I am trying to keep my commentary to a minimum but this next bit really struck me because it reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend and global stock investor who told me that port capacity in Brazil was going to spike sugar prices, leaving me thinking, "Seriously?  What year is it?"

Back to Kagan, who is now arguing that when Obama says that he is dealing with the world "as it is" that the President is misunderstanding how it got that way:

"Periods of peace and prosperity can make people forget what the world 'as it is' really looks like, and to assume that the human race has simply ascended to some higher plateau of being."

And, then:

"Imagine strolling through Central Park and, after noting how much safer it had become, deciding that humanity must simply have become less violent -- without thinking that perhaps the New York Police Department had something to do with it."

This cognitive error, he says, has also been made by Fareed Zakaria and Steven Pinker. I think Kagan is bringing us back to Thomas Hobbes. Yes, in fact, he is:

"In fact, the world 'as it is' is a dangerous and often brutal place. There has been no transformation in human behavior or in international relations.  In the twenty first century, no less than in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, force remains the ultima ratio."

And, back to us (assuming you're also a contemporary American):

"Today, however, because many Americans no longer recall what the world 'as it is' really looks like, they cannot imagine it. They bemoan the burdens and failures inherent in the grand strategy (of post-WWII, U.S.-led, interventionism) but take for granted all of the remarkable benefits."

So, there you have it.  Forget his policy recommendations, this is his view of human nature and this is the language of official conversation.  I'm trying not to put a value to this.  I just want to stare at the assumptions made before discussions even begin.