" (Huslman and Lieven, 2005; p. 2) Americans are at the present relating concern "by the seemingly limitless ambition of this project and the severe geopolitical risks to which it could lead." (p.2) Ethical realism is said to stand for "...an international strategy based on prudence; a concentration on possible results rather than good intentions; a close study of the nature, views and interest of other states and a willingness to accommodate them when possible; and a mixture of profound American patriotism withy an equally profound awareness of the limits both on American power and American goodness." (Huslman and Lieven, 2005; p. 6-7) it is stated that in relation to realism, which is essentially moralism that "Any foreign policy without a moral component should be anathema to a country that aspires to stand as "a shining city on a hill' to the rest of the world." (Huslman and Lieven, 2005; p. 7) Morgethau states that: "The equation of political moralizing with morality and of political realism with immorality is itself untenable. The choice is not between moral principles and the national interest, devoid of moral dignity, but between one set of moral principles divorced from political reality and another set of moral principles derived from political reality." (Huslman and Lieven, 2005; p. 7) According to Huslman and Lieven: "There is little doubt...that the world is fortunate that the United States stands as the ordering power at the century's end. A strong America is the bastion of the present civilized political order. However, neoconservatives, through their policies of expending blood and treasure for problematic gains such as Iraq, are significantly retarding America's ability to act against the true barbarians at the gate - Al Qaeda and Islamic extremists." (Huslman and Lieven, 2005; p. 8) SUMMARY and CONCLUSION

Certainly, it is, just as stated by Huslman and Lieven, a good thing for the world-at-large that the United States of America holds the greatest of all world power as the United States...

Truman's political stance of containment of war, regardless of who held the power to make war was a stance of realism and a knowing that some quagmires are too deep, and too insignificant for the United States to waste its resources and manpower upon. Khalidi importantly points out that the empire is not intentionally created but is born through a pathway dependency, in the inability or unwillingness to reverse actions already set in motion, even if reversal is the best choice. This appears to be what has happened in relation to the United States involvement in the war in Iraq, as every American is able to see that removal of U.S. troops is the preferable choice, and yet due to pathway dependence this is not likely to occur. Additionally, with war drums now reverberating from the country of Iran who insists that it is gaining nuclear abilities the expansion of the empire of the United States will likely be forced, due to pathway dependency to march forward into yet another war with the country of Iran, unless Iran bows to the will of the United States. The better-chosen path for the Untied States in the situation with Iraq would certainly have been based upon the realism policy of containment however, it does appear to be far too late to make that reversal.
Bibliography

Maier, Charles (2006) Among Empires: American Ascendancy and Its Predecessors. Harvard University Press 2006.

Khalidi, Rashid (2004) Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America's Perilous Path in the Middle East. Beacon Press 2004.

Hulsman, John C. And Lieven, Anatol (2005) the Ethics of Realism. 2005 Summer. The National Interest.

Hurrell, Andrew…