Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Kagan, Robert

  • Brookings Institution: Senior Fellow
  • Foreign Policy Initiative: Cofounder
  • Project for the New American Century: Cofounder

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Robert Kagan is a neoconservative writer and historian based at the Brookings Institution. A longtime proponent of an aggressive, interventionist U.S. foreign policy, Kagan has played an influential role in shaping the neoconservative agenda for more than two decades.

Kagan was a cofounder of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a now defunct pressure group that helped build Beltway support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. In the early years of the Obama administration, he reprised this role as a cofounder of the Foreign Policy Initiative, a PNAC successor group.

He has also served as an adviser to the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a board member of the U.S. Committee on NATO, an “international patron” of the UK-based Henry Jackson Society, a contributing editor at the Weekly Standard, and a foreign policy adviser to the Republican presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney and John McCain.

Despite Kagan’s GOP bona fides, during the 2016 presidential primaries he described himself as a “former Republican” because of his disappointment over the party’s 2016 presidential candidates. In an op-ed for the Washington Post, Kagan expressed particular concern about the rise of Donald Trump, whom he called “the most successful demagogue-charlatan in the history of U.S. politics.” Blaming the Republican Party for the creation of Trump and the emergence of other disastrous candidates like Sen. Ted Cruz, Kagan wrote in the Post, “For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be.”[1]

During a “foreign policy professionals for Hillary” fundraising event in July 2016, Kagan said: “I would say all Republican foreign policy professionals are anti-Trump. … I would say that a majority of people in my circle will vote for Hillary.”

In 2014, Kagan foreshadowed his endorsement of Hillary Clinton during an interview with the New York Times. “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” he said. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue, it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”[2]

Kagan has also maintained a number of bipartisan affiliations. He has visited the Obama White House, for example, and helped establish a bipartisan civilian advisory board for Democratic Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.[3] According to one report, “Kagan has also been careful to avoid landing at standard-issue neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute” and has “insisted on maintaining the link between modern neoconservatism and its roots in muscular Cold War liberalism.” Kagan has even shied away from the “neoconservative” label, saying he prefers to be described as a “liberal interventionist.”[4]

U.S. Intervention and the “Global Order”

A key theme in Kagan’s work concerns the maintenance of the “liberal world order,” which as he perceives it amounts to a U.S.-enforced international state system. “In my view, the willingness of the United States to use force and to threaten to use force to defend its interests and the liberal world order has been an essential and unavoidable part of sustaining that world order since the end of World War II,” he wrote in a 2014 column for the Washington Post.[5]

Kagan spelled out this view in a long 2014 essay for The New Republic. Entitled “Superpowers Don’t Get to Retire,” the piece argued that active, forceful U.S. intervention in the affairs of other countries had reshaped the international system for the better. “In the twenty-first century, no less than in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, force remains the ultima ratio,” he claimed. “If there has been less aggression, less ethnic cleansing, less territorial conquest over the past 70 years, it is because the United States and its allies have both punished and deterred aggression, have intervened, sometimes, to prevent ethnic cleansing, and have gone to war to reverse territorial conquest.”[6]

Kagan warned darkly that if the United States didn’t enforce its will on the international system, other powers would. “When Vladimir Putin failed to achieve his goals in Ukraine through political and economic means, he turned to force, because he believed that he could,” Kagan wrote. He added: “What might China do were it not hemmed in by a ring of powerful nations backed by the United States? For that matter, what would Japan do if it were much more powerful and much less dependent on the United States for its security? We have not had to find out the answers to these questions, not yet, because American predominance, the American alliance system, and the economic, political, and institutional aspects of the present order, all ultimately dependent on power, have mostly kept the lid closed on this Pandora’s box.”

Lamenting public war weariness and the Obama administration’s reluctance to intervene in Syria and Ukraine, among other venues, Kagan warned that “there is no democratic superpower waiting in the wings to save the world if this democratic superpower falters.”[7]

Some liberal hawks and neoconservatives hailed the piece as a rejoinder to the prevailing public skepticism in the United States about the use of force overseas. According to the New York Times, it “struck such a nerve in the White House that many in the foreign policy establishment considered part of Mr. Obama’s speech [in June 2014] at West Point outlining a narrower vision for American force in world affairs to be a rebuttal, and the president even invited Mr. Kagan to lunch to compare world views.”[8]

However, Kagan’s critics argued that he had badly exaggerated the role of the United States in shaping world events throughout the post-World War II period and glossed over many of Washington’s more morally dubious policies. Calling Kagan a “polemicist and an ideologue,” Andrew Bacevich argued that the piece’s central assertions about the benevolence of U.S. foreign policy failed to stand up “to even casual scrutiny.” Among other things, Bacevich said Kagan had overlooked Washington’s steadfast support for violent, anti-democratic forces in its own sphere of influence, as well as neglected to seriously consider the fallout from catastrophic interventions in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. “If Americans appear disinclined to have a go at overthrowing Syria’s Assad or at restoring the Crimea to Ukrainian control, it’s due to their common-sense assessment of what U.S. policy in very recent years has produced,” Bacevich concluded. “On this subject, astonishingly, Kagan has almost nothing to say.”[9]

Writing for the realist National Interest, Jacob Heilbrunn observed that Kagan’s 2014 ode to American superpower “is not a novel thesis. Rather, it is Kagan’s latest variation on a theme that he has consistently sounded on behalf of American global activism” since at least the 1990s. “Superpowers don’t retire,” Heilbrunn quipped, “but Robert Kagan should.”[10]

Kagan followed on the New Republic essay with a September 2014 Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “America’s Dangerous Aversion to Conflict,” which bemoaned the “yearning for an escape from the burdens of power and a reprieve from the tragic realities of human existence.” He compared the current world order to pre-World War II Europe, writing: “As we head deeper into our version of the 1930s, we may be quite shocked, just as our forebears were, at how quickly things fall apart.”[11]

In response, John Heilbrunn of the National Interest wrote: “The military solution that Kagan appears to endorse, first and foremost, is hardly the best ambassador for freedom and democracy. Quite the contrary. … Maybe Kagan should have more confidence in America and its values. For all his disdain for declinism, Kagan, in blaming America first, comes dangerously close to submitting to it himself.”[12]

Hawkish Track Record

Kagan hails from a well established neoconservative family. He is the son of the conservative classicist Donald Kagan and the brother of Frederick Kagan, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who helped promote the U.S. “troop surge” in Iraq. His spouse is Victoria Nuland, a veteran diplomat and former deputy national security adviser to Dick Cheney who is often credited as an editor of Kagan’s work.[13]

Kagan launched his career in the early 1980s as a foreign policy adviser to Rep. Jack Kemp (R-NY), a future vice presidential candidate who was closely associated with the hawkish wing of the Republican Party. Then, after a stint on the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, Kagan was appointed by Elliott Abrams in 1985 to head the Office of Public Diplomacy, which was created to push for U.S. support of the anti-communist “Contra” rebels in Nicaragua. (In his 1996 book A Twilight Struggle, which was touted as the “definitive history” of the U.S. anti-Sandinista campaign, Kagan neglected to mention Abrams’ subsequent criminal conviction for lying to Congress about the Reagan administration’s support for the Contras).[14] Kagan served in the State Department until 1988, leaving the government to become a public scholar.

In 1997, in a bid to press the Clinton administration to pursue a “Reaganite” foreign policy, Kagan and veteran neoconservative activist William Kristol cofounded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Among other hawkish policies, the group played a key role in building elite support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq, issuing an open letter after the 9/11 attacks arguing that the United States should respond by invading Iraq “even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack.”[15]

Resistance to the movement for war in Iraq from Europe and elsewhere spurred Kagan, who was then based at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, to sharpen his theses on U.S. interventionism. In a 2002 article for Policy Review that became the basis for his book Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order (2003), Kagan argued, “On the all-important question of power—the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the desirability of power—American and European perspectives are diverging. Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of Kant’s ‘Perpetual Peace.’ The United States, meanwhile, remains mired in history, exercising power in the anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable and where true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might.”[16]

Of Paradise and Power was widely panned for its support of U.S. unilateralism. Reviewing the book, leftist historian Howard Zinn wrote that “it is part of the corruption of contemporary language that an analysis of American foreign policy by a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace should argue for the right of the United States to use military force, regardless of international law, and international opinion, whenever it unilaterally decides its ‘national interest’ requires it.” Zinn opined that Kagan’s book supplies “intellectual justification, superficial as it is, for the bullying and violence of United States foreign policy.”[17]

Kagan maintained his support for the Iraq War even after many of his assertions about the conflict—including that it would come to an early close and that the Bush administration’s claims about WMDs in the country would be vindicated—proved wildly inaccurate.[18] Instead of walking back his support, however, Kagan called for a troop escalation. “It is precisely the illusion that a political solution is possible in the midst of rampant violence that has gotten us where we are today,” he wrote in November 2006. “What’s needed in Iraq are not more clever plans but more U.S. troops to provide the security to make any plan workable. Even those seeking a way out of Iraq as soon as possible should understand the need for an immediate surge in U.S. troop levels to provide the stability necessary so that eventual withdrawal will not produce chaos and an implosion of the Iraqi state.”[19]

In March 2009, around the time that President Obama announced a plan to increase troop levels in Afghanistan, Kagan and Kristol launched the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), which liberal blogger Matt Duss dubbed “The Project for the Rehabilitation of Neoconservatism.”[20] Among Kagan’s early forays on behalf of the group, he promoted the escalation of the war in Afghanistan[21] and criticized the Obama administration for not taking a more confrontational line on Iran.[22]

FPI’s platform “is a watered-down version of the bellicose neoconservative program that worked so well over the past decade, producing a disastrous war in Iraq and a deteriorating situation in Central Asia and bringing America’s image around the world to new lows,” wrote Harvard international relations professor Stephen M. Walt for Foreign Policy. “The new group’s modus operandi is likely to be similar to the old Project for a New American Century: bombard Washington with press releases and email alerts, draft open letters to be signed by assorted pundits and former policymakers, and organize conferences intended to advance the group’s interventionist agenda.”[23]

Kagan has on occasion broken with some of his neoconservative colleagues.

One notable instance occurred in 2013, following a coup in Egypt that toppled the country’s elected Muslim Brotherhood government and restored the military to power. While some neoconservatives argued that the Egyptian military would be a more reliable U.S. ally than the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, Kagan argued unequivocally that support for the military’s dictatorial rule was short-sighted. It has become “fashionable,” Kagan wrote, “to argue that Muslim Arabs are incapable of democracy—this after so many millions of them came out to vote in Egypt, only to see Western democracies do little or nothing when the product of their votes was overthrown.” He went on to call for “a complete suspension of all aid to Egypt, especially military aid, until there is a new democratic government, freely elected with the full participation of all parties and groups in Egypt, including the Muslim Brotherhood.”[24]

Kagan’s critique was notable in part for its direct confrontation with the U.S. “Israel lobby,” which largely supported sending aid to Egypt’s coup government. “To Israel, which has never supported democracy anywhere in the Middle East except Israel,” wrote Kagan, “the presence of a brutal military dictatorship bent on the extermination of Islamism is not only tolerable but desirable.” But, he added, “in Egypt, U.S. interests and Israel’s perceptions of its own interests sharply diverge. If one believes that any hope for moderation in the Arab world requires finding moderate voices not only among secularists but also among Islamists, America’s current strategy in Egypt is producing the opposite result.”[25]

Kagan is the author of several books on U.S. interventionism, including A Twilight Struggle: American Power and Nicaragua, 1977-1990 (1996), Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order (2003), Dangerous Nation: America’s Place in the World from its Earliest Days to the Dawn of the Twentieth Century (2006), The Return of History and the End of Dreams (2008), and The World America Made (2012).

Share RightWeb

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.


[1] Robert Kagan, “Trump is the GOP’s Frankenstein monster. Now he’s strong enough to destroy the party,” Washington Post, February 25, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-the-gops-frankenstein-monster-now-hes-strong-enough-to-destroy-the-party/2016/02/25/3e443f28-dbc1-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html

[2] Jason Horowitz, “Events in Iraq Open Door for Interventionist Revival, Historian Says,” New York Times, June 15, 2014,http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/politics/historians-critique-of-obama-foreign-policy-is-brought-alive-by-events-in-iraq.html?_r=1.

[3] Jason Horowitz, “Events in Iraq Open Door for Interventionist Revival, Historian Says,” New York Times, June 15, 2014,http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/politics/historians-critique-of-obama-foreign-policy-is-brought-alive-by-events-in-iraq.html?_r=1.

[4] Jacob Heilbrunn, “The Next Act of the Neocons,” New York Times, July 5, 2014,http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html.

[5] Robert Kagan, “U.S. needs a discussion on when, not whether, to use force,” Washington Post, July 15, 2014,http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-kagan-us-needs-a-discussion-on-when-not-whether-to-use-force/2014/07/15/f8bcf116-0b65-11e4-8341-b8072b1e7348_story.html.

[6] Robert Kagan, “Superpowers Don’t Get to Retire,” New Republic, May 26, 2014,http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117859/allure-normalcy-what-america-still-owes-world.

[7] Robert Kagan, “Superpowers Don’t Get to Retire,” New Republic, May 26, 2014,http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117859/allure-normalcy-what-america-still-owes-world.

[8] Jason Horowitz, “Events in Iraq Open Door for Interventionist Revival, Historian Says,” New York Times, June 15, 2014,http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/politics/historians-critique-of-obama-foreign-policy-is-brought-alive-by-events-in-iraq.html?_r=1.

[9] Andrew Bacevich, “The Duplicity of the Ideologues,” Commonweal Magazine, June 4, 2014,https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/duplicity-ideologues.

[10] Jacob Heilbrunn, “Superpowers Don’t Retire, but Robert Kagan Should,” National Interest, June 4, 2014,http://nationalinterest.org/feature/superpowers-dont-retire-robert-kagan-should-10596.

[11] Robert Kagan, “America’s Dangerous Aversion to Conflict,” The Wall Street Journal, September 5, 2014,http://online.wsj.com/articles/robert-kagan-why-the-u-s-wants-to-avoid-conflict-1409942201.

[12] Jacob Heibrunn, “Robert Kagan Blames America First,” The National Interest, September 9, 2014,http://nationalinterest.org/feature/robert-kagan-blames-america-first-11233?page=2.

[13] Jason Horowitz, “Events in Iraq Open Door for Interventionist Revival, Historian Says,” New York Times, June 15, 2014,http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/politics/historians-critique-of-obama-foreign-policy-is-brought-alive-by-events-in-iraq.html?_r=1.

[14] Philip H. Burch, Research in Political Economy: Reagan, Bush, and Right-Wing Politics, Supplement 1 (Greenwich, CT: Jai Press, 1997), pp. 275.

[15] Project for the New American Century, Letter to George W. Bush, September 20, 2001,https://web.archive.org/web/20131010233647/http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm

[16] Robert Kagan, “The Power and Weakness,” Policy Review, June/July 2002,http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/kagan.htm.

[17] Howard Zinn, “Of Paradise and Power,” Zmag.org, February 9, 2004, http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/9099.

[18] Glenn Greenwald, “Why would any rational person listen to Robert Kagan?” Salon.com, March 11, 2007,http://www.salon.com/2007/03/11/kagan_11/.

[19] Robert Kagan, “Send More Troops,” The New Republic, November 27, 2006,http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=18884.

[20] Mass Duss, “Project For The Rehabilitation Of Neoconservatism,” The Wonk Room, March 26, 2009,http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/03/26/project-for-the-rehabilitation-of-neoconservatism/.

[21] Foreign Policy Initiative, “Afghanistan: Planning for Success,” March 31, 2009,http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/files/pdfs/planningforsuccesskeyquotes.pdf.

[22] Robert Kagan, “Obama, Siding With the Regime,” Washington Post, June 17, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061601753.html

[23] Stephen M Walt, “Would you Buy a Used Foreign Policy From These Guys?.” ForeignPolicy, March 31, 2009,http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/31/would_you_buy_a_used_foreign_policy_from_these_guys.

[24] Robert Kagan, “In Egypt, it’s past time for the Obama administration to use what power the U.S. has,” Washington Post, July 5, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-egypt-its-past-time-for-the-obama-administration-to-use-what-power-the-us-has/2013/07/05/86e0bd0a-e5a2-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html.

[25] Robert Kagan, “Why the United States shouldn’t support Egypt’s ruling generals,” Washington Post, May 1, 2014,http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-kagan-why-the-united-states-shouldnt-support-egypts-ruling-generals/2014/05/01/e7a7403e-d154-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html.

Share RightWeb

Kagan, Robert Résumé


  • Brookings Institution: Senior Fellow
  • Foreign Policy Initiative: Cofounder, Board of Directors
  • Henry Jackson Society: International Patron
  • Project for the New American Century: Co-founder and Former Co-director
  • Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: Former Senior Associate
  • U.S. Committee on NATO: Former Member, Board of Directors
  • Council on Foreign Relations: Member
  • Weekly Standard: Contributing Editor
  • The New Republic: Contributing Editor
  • Washington Post: Monthly Columnist
  • German Marshall Fund: Former Transatlantic Fellow
  • American Committee for Peace in the Caucasus: Member
  • Committee for the Liberation of Iraq: Former Member, Advisory Board
  • Public Interest: Assistant Editor, 1981


  • State Department: Deputy for Policy, Bureau of Inter-American Affairs, 1985-1988
  • Office of the Secretary of State: Principal Speechwriter for Secretary George P. Schultz and Member of Policy Planning Staff, 1984-1985
  • U.S. Information Agency: Special Assistant to the Deputy Director, 1983
  • Office of Rep. Jack Kemp (R-NY): Foreign Policy Adviser, 1983


  • Yale University: B.A.
  • Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University: M.A., Public Policy
  • American University: Ph.D., History


Robert Kagan News Feed

Right Web is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

The Right Web Mission

Right Web tracks militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

Featured Profiles

Haim Saban is a media mogul and major donor to the Democratic Party known for his hardline stance on Israel and opposition to the Iran nuclear deal.

Nikki Haley, Donald Trump’s first U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and is widely considered to be a future presidential candidate.

Brian Hook is the director of policy planning and senior policy advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and is the head of the Iran Action Group.

Josh Rogin is a journalist known for his support for neoconservative policies and views.

Laurence Silberman, a senior justice on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, was a mentor to controversial Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and has been a vocal supporter of right-wing foreign and domestic agendas, including the campaign to support the invasion of Iraq.

The People’s Mujahedin of Iran, or MEK, advocates regime change in Iran and has strong connections with a wide range of top political figures in the U.S.

Eli Lake is a columnist for Bloomberg View who has a lengthy record of advocating for aggressive U.S. foreign policies towards the Middle East.