America's relations with Asia continue to rely on institutions that are a legacy of the Cold War. Since the Cold War was resolved long ago, it is important to inquire whether the same institutions continue to be appropriate. Is the post–Cold War situation equally amenable to the same institutions? Have those institutions evolved in ways that fit the new situation? Or have some sought to survive the advent of the new situation by evolving in ways that hamper attainment of U.S. interests?

Historical experience shows that when a foreign-policy era ends, the institutions, mindset, and interest groups that characterized the old era tend to persist into the new era, with inertia that often endures far longer than the institutions’ utility. This happened, for instance, with George Washington's doctrine of No Entangling Alliances, which attempted to keep the new American nation free of dangerous involvements in foreign conflicts. The mentality of that 18th-century wisdom persisted through the middle of the 20th century, greatly hampering the country's ability to confront in a timely fashion the challenges of fascism and communism that were emerging in Europe and Asia.

Given this historical pattern, it is appropriate to question whether the great institutions of the Truman Doctrine and the Cold War are likely to remain appropriate for coming decades. The great Cold War institutions proved remarkably adaptive and resilient to different conditions during the Cold War era—the period of Sino-Soviet alliance, the period of Sino-Soviet antagonism, the periods of peace, and the times of the Korean and Vietnam wars.