In dealing with the security of this nation, Professor Nordlinger looks at the problem of maximizing conciliation while reassuring this challenger aspect in American Foreign policy. He begins by using the principles of the predatory nature or behavior of hawks, doves, and eagles. This analogy to set forth his beliefs on conciliatory internationalism, which he defines as an ideal "focused upon the unnecessary creation, exacerbation, and escalation of conflict (pg. 94). All in all, Professor Nordlinger looks at isolationism in the aspect that the United States should simply detach itself from being some global police force and use her influence on an economic and social scale, without the need for this nation to actually be abroad.

One objective this work achieves is setting forth a critical analysis of current foreign policy objectives in the context of an isolationist perspective. Chapter six deals with a bit of historical analysis concerning the outcomes of a national strategy. Comparisons are drawn with the practice of conciliatory internationalism to the reach and significance of current and historical policy. Taking a cost-benefit approach, these policies would be far more economical for this nation. However, putting this in to some practical use would raise more questions than answers given in this book. One question that is difficult to ignore in the field of foreign policy is the mind-set of the challenger or the adversary. Such was the case of the Soviet Union and its adherence to SALT, NPT, and START, as mentioned in this chapter.

Nordlinger's isolationist principles are best viewed by breaking down all the levels of his analysis. In simple terms, isolationist thinking has historically preached the noninvolvement of the United States in the affairs of Europe exclusively. Yet American isolationism has never been taken to its fullest level in regards to the point of a disassociation with Europe. Most isolationist ideals, those most familiar to students of political studies, fell away with this nation's entry in the Second World War. The US, at the time had little choice, during and after the war, of avoiding entanglement with Europe and any other region, for that matter.

The problem of isolationist ideals is that this nation has never set herself out to put into practice any of these ideologies. U.S. involvement in Central America, the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny are all fundamental and historical American convictions that this nation founded itself upon. Yet now authors such as Nordlinger want to look toward some kind of minimal activism on the part of the United States? Minimal activism has never been a practice of this nation. Although the theory seems sound, practical application by this country of this aspect, or any aspect of isolationism philosophy in this age seems to abstract to actually put into practice. Isolationist principles run contrary to principles this nations represents itself of having in regards to the rest of the world.

Therefore, the main idea of chapter VI concerns itself with the premise of defensive concerns. Nordlinger looks at such concerns to be taken "to be far weightier than any other goals", in this nation. Conciliatory internationalism works on many different levels. An unfortunate problem inherent to these readings is that multi-level analysis are spelled out for the reader in a complicated political vernacular that makes it exceeding difficult to find any point to the work. It is abstrusive for any student, indeed one who is interested and concerned with the field of political studies, to truly attempt , understand, or appreciate any ideals set forth in this work.

This should be a simple case study putting forth the principles of a theory familiar to all students in the area of Political Studies, yet it becomes some exercise in futility when these ideals are set into such a involved manner and style.