george kennan that formulated the policy and maybe they should not get that much credit. is during the golden era of presidents. richard smith, take that question. >> first of all, we should keep in mind, there are only a few points. when we add all this up, there are only a few points separating them. quite frankly, it could have been flipped the other way around. oncee thing they have in common though, i talked about how eisenhower had risen dramatically. harry truman had an even more dramatic rise in popular esteem. truman left office with some of the lowest poll numbers ever recorded. the korean war was not seen as a success. he was decidedly out of fashion. 20 years went by and in the 1970's, vietnam and watergate combined to encourage us to look again at truman, who all of a sudden, it is not that we had new information, like with eisenhower, but we had a new way of seeing the existing information. all of a sudden, truman seemed like the real deal. and there was something authentic about harry truman, which put him in good standing in this day and age when so much o

diplomat having been a practitioner for 30 years i certainly associate myself with the comments that george kennan made although he's not my favorite foreign service officer but he is sort of the archetype of the diplomat and a 1946 addressing the national war college he said you have no idea how much it contributes to the general politeness and pleasantness of diplomacy when you have a quiet armed force in the background. the mere existence of those forces he said is probably the most important single instrumentality in the conduct of u.s. foreign policy. i thoroughly agree with kennan. that's not to say one wants to use those forces promiscuously and sometimes people think the foreign service wants to do it but it does mean that; non-of effective diplomacy is the availability of usable military power. if you need any better example of that i would argue the fact was important was diplomacy that former secretary kerry engaged in over in syria over the last year and a half under the obama administration would be exhibit a. professor cohen begins his book, this book is really buy that way about mor

having been the practitioner for 30 years, i certainly associate myself with the comments that george kennan made although he's not my favorite foreign service officer but he's so that the diplomat in 1946 in addressing the national war college in the u.s. no idea how much it contributes to the politeness of diplomacy to have a little quiet armed force in the background. the existence of the forces he said is probably the most important single instrumentality in the u.s. foreign policy, and i agree they use them as sometimes they think the service wants to do but it does mean it has the ability of military power. the diplomacy that the former secretary engaged in over the last year and a half would be exhibit a. he begins his book by the way i want to say about more than the use of military power and hard power. it's a book about the role of the united states and the international system and by hard power and the alliance sustain sustained. the challenges that we faced fae multiplicity of challenges and the form of russia, the continuing challenge and the danger of the failing states to the

having been a particular -- practitioner for 30 years am i associate myself with comments that george kennan made, though he is not my favorite foreign service officer, but the archetype of the diplomat and 1946 addressing the national war college, you have no idea how much it contributes to the general politeness and pleasantness of diplomacy when you have acquired armed force in the background. the mere existence of those forces is the most important single instrumentality in the conduct of us foreign policy and i thoroughly agree with that. not to say wanting to use those forces promiscuously is sometimes people think the foreign service wants to do but it does mean effective diplomacy is the availability of usable military power and if you need any better example of that i would argue the feckless and pointless diplomacy former secretary john kerry engaged in over syria over the last year and a half would be exhibit a. professor eliot cohen began his book, this book by the way i want to say is about than the use of military power and the importance of hard power. it is a book about the u

diplomat having been a practitioner for 60 years, i certainly associate myself with the comments that george kennanmade, although he is not my favorite foreign service officer, but Ãhe is sort of the arts type of the diplomat. in 1946 in addressing that the national war college, he said you have no idea how much it contributes to the general politeness and pleasantness of diplomacy we have a little quite armed force in the background. the mere existence of those courses he said, is probably the most important single instrumentality in the conduct of us foreign policy. and i thoroughly agree with him. that is not to say that one wants to use those forces promiscuously as sometimes people think the foreign service wants to do. but it does mean that à effective diplomacy is the availability of usable military power. and if you need any better example of that, i would argue that the rather pointless diplomacy that her secretary john kerry engaged in syria in the obama administration the last year and and a half would be exhibit a. professor cohen begins his book. his book by the way i want to say is ab