Sandy Berger Quotes

What is the point in punishing a country?

Enforcement is a very important part of the administration strategy. We think that even our friendly nations should live by the rules, and if they don't, we will intend to enforce things against them.

Power alone is respected and ... in order to gain peace, the United States has no alternative but to wield it

Where is the evidence that Washington's world view sways the multitude of nations? To enlist support for its wars in Korea, Vietnam and in the Gulf, the United States had to resort to a lot of bribery and threats. At the United Nations, the US has, with noteworthy regularity, been on the minority side in voting on resolutions.

Threats must be credible if they are to influence the behavior of other states.

In international affairs, you never threaten things you're not prepared to do.

Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan, 'You're either with us or against us.'

But, actually, it is only Americans who say that our freedoms and prosperity are the reason foreigners hate us. If you ask the foreigners, they make it clear that it's America's bullying foreign policy they detest.

You should never take military intervention off the table. When you do so, you give an out to a rogue nation or rogue actors.

I never take a step in foreign policy unless I am assured that I shall be able to carry out my will by force.

I have always favored withdrawing recognition from Russia.

America is different. It irks and domineers. But it does not conquer. It tries to call the shots and bend the rules, but it does not go to war for land and glory.

People who challenge the United States and the international order [must] suffer enormous and unacceptable consequences.

It’s not a dictatorship in the United States. But it is dictatorial to the rest of the world. Who’s going to say no?

If the United States were attacked by rockets from one of our neighboring countries, we would be a lot tougher on them than Israel has been on the Palestinians. When we were attacked, we sent an army abroad and took over Afghanistan from the Taliban.

The United States does not feel any need to consult with anybody … except when it suits them.

We're not trying to start a war; we're trying to send a political message.

Is a military solution the only way to stop nations from doing bad things?

There's no sense in using surrogates to pursue United States national interests.

Deterrence, of course, is all about the perception of power. It hinges on convincing adversaries that, with force, guile, or economic isolation, you can make the think twice about acting against American interests.

Moscow believes that using force constitutes strategic defense.

At the U.N., I routinely encounter countries that do not want to impose sanctions or even to enforce those already on the books. The hard-line sanctions skeptics have their own self-interested reasons for opposing sanctions, but they ground their opposition in claims that America uses sanctions to inflict punishment for punishment's sake.

Politicians often call for sanctions as a way of sounding tough when they don't want to take riskier measures.

Our enemies and allies alike must know that aggressors will pay an unspeakable price for challenging the United States. The best way to impose that price is global military dominance.

In my experience, bad actors respond to threats of military action or sanctions.