Indeed, although Presidents typically chart in their rhetoric and promises ambitious paths to the future (of “change,” “return to values,” etc.), a great deal of what governments do is reactive, responding to, rather than shaping, events. No where is this clearer than in foreign affairs, where friends and enemies alike all have a “vote” — the ability to influence US policies by their own policies and actions. The US may not be a “global hegemon” but our leaders consistently talk as if it were. This is no less true of Obama’s talk about working with other nations than it was about Bush’s uniliateralism. In both cases, the assumption is that other nations wil do what we want — whether we ask, negotiate “toughly,” darw lines in the sand, or go to war. But this is rarely true. Nations (and non-state actors, too) act in their own interests as best they can. Consequently, there will always be a high degree of uncertainty surrounding what may happen next in international affairs. Success, at least in this arena, requires above all pragmatism and flexibility.