More than other fields of public affairs, the discussion of foreign policy presents special temptations to irrelevancy, rhetoricalness, and sheer hocus pocus. Several possible explanations for this come to mind. For one thing, it is a vast and varied subject, remote from the scope of observation and sensory evidence. The relevant processes are too complex for their essences to be tangible. We reduce the complexities to label-words, then pass these around as if they contained the essences of the matters referred to.

The Cold War, thermonuclear deterrence, national self-determination, peaceful settlement, international Communism—a myriad such expressions enjoying common currency are the simple labels put on enormously complex relationships and processes in continuous flux.