a question, a critique, or a further development of something the author(s) wrote

The initial posts can take the form of a question, a critique, or a further development of something the author(s) wrote. The posts should be at least one full paragraph in length, but can be as long as required to develop the point. 
One thing the discussion board posts should not be: please do not merely summarize the books argument. We have all read the book, so we know the summary already were interested in your thinking about it. Add something original, like your opinion about the book overall or a particular argument in the book (and give reasons!).

Each post is graded on the following scale, with half points representing a post in between an A and B (that is, A-/B+) B and C (B-/C+), etc.:
3 points (A): An exceptional post one that makes an original and well-developed argument, or creatively compares the weeks required reading with other scholarship.

Required reading:  
American Foreign Policy and Its Thinkers by Perry Anderson
 
Recommended reading:  
Realism and Morality in Politics by Andrei V. Kortunov
Americas Liberal Illiberalism: The Ideological Origins of Overreaction in U.S. Foreign Policy by Michael C. Desch
Homeland by Perry Anderson

REPLY TO THIS POST:

Where is the future of American diplomatic policy

The struggle for power is identical with the struggle for survival, and the improvement of the relative power position becomes the primary objective of the internal and external policy of states, for there is no real security in being just as strong as a potential enemy; there is security only in being a little stronger. Participation in WW made US yield double bonus. The American GNP doubled, economy grew at a phenomenal rate under the stimulus of military procurements, and all its three main industrial rivals, Germany, Britain, Japanemerged from the conflict shattered or weakened, leaving Washington in a position to reshape the universe of capital to its requirements. It gave rational explanation why the US so obsessive about containment, intervention and  expansion. On the one hand, the war did provide great opportunity for America to develop rapidly, compete over other countries with robust capital power and stand out in the world stage. For another, conflicts and uncertainty in the world circumstances made the country surrounded by deep insecurity perpetually, shaping the rooted ideology in US.
For a long time, the United States kept expanding its power in the Middle East. The classic view of the role oil plays in the American foreign policy as US engaged in places rich in oil resources. But technically US has a strong interest in oil not for these reasons as the nation is not particularly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Only a very small portion of the actual supply of energy in the US comes from the Middle East and the primary consumption comes from North America and West Africa, actual supply driven need is not urgent. Apart from that, new technologies enables the US to increase its reserves of natural gas and shelf oil, which further dispel the doubt. Bush’s decision to overthrow Saddam Husseins regime, destroying al-Qaeda’s infrastructure and capturing and killing Osama bin Laden was another strong evidence. The objective was not just ousting Saddam Hussein’s regime from power, but also using the war as a step towards global hegemony. Plus the fact that public opinion being in favor of going to the war made the country be free to pursue offensive strategies without stepping back. Nevertheless, offensive realism was not the only the path US ever followed, liberalist ideology promoted the move of US urging China opening the market and the Dodge program issued in Japan curb the inflation and developed its economy. Both policies stimulate two countries economy and became formidable competitor, which in turn deepen US fear and insecurity.
Keep hegemony ideology or seek mild foreign policy? Where is the future of American diplomatic policy?
 
Anderson, P. (2015). American foreign policy and its thinkers. Verso Books.
Yordn, C. L. (2006). America’s quest for global hegemony: Offensive realism, the Bush doctrine, and the 2003 Iraq War. Theoria, 53(110), 125-157.
Mead, W. R. (2002). The American foreign policy legacy. Foreign Affairs, 163-176.