(“America Between the Wars: From 11/9 to 9/11 — The Misunderstood Years Between the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the Start of the War on Terror” by Derek Chollet and James Goldgeier, Public Affairs, 412 pages, $27.95).

This book is a well-written account of how both major political parties dealt with the changing reality of the end of the Cold War. Did it free us from involvement in world affairs, or was there still an effective and moral role for the U.S. to play?

If that sounds a bit heavy, it is really a refreshing, non-partisan and thoughtful look at a 12-year period during which Americans had to adjust their thinking about the larger world. After the Cold War, it was generally thought that our role would be easier, less challenging.

The U.S. had for nearly half a century been focused on the Soviet Union, which now had dissolved. The authors contend that after the collapse of communism and the defeat of Iraq in the first Gulf War, the U.S. was “adrift,” unsure of what it wanted, unsure of what its role in the world could or should be.

If there was a vacuum in American foreign policy, or at least much uncertainty about our role, there were those on the Republican right who championed a new isolationism, emphasizing, as Pat Buchanan said, “a new nationalism” and a foreign policy that always put America first, “and not only first, but second and third as well.”

On the other hand, neoconservatives sought for a more aggressive policy, arguing as Dick Cheney did late in the first President Bush’s term that the U.S. should “remain the preeminent world power by keeping others at bay and bending the world to its wishes….” Other voices in the GOP saw our role “as leading by example and inspiring others to join the U.S.-led order.”

President Clinton came to power in 1993 with hope and idealism but was no more clear about the U.S. role in the changed world than were the Republicans.

The authors say of Clinton that he did not spend enough time on foreign policy, and that he was too “uncertain and tentative.” He wanted to support human rights, feed the hungry, promote democracy and stop genocide. But were these in our national interest, especially if they required military intervention? Were they worth American body bags returning from overseas? There were “grave humanitarian consequences of American inaction,” to be sure, but noble aims, such as our attempt at peaceful intervention in Somalia, led to disaster, and Americans were becoming disillusioned. The Cold War was over; why wasn’t the world becoming more peaceful? Why couldn’t the U.S. be at rest?

Great debates were held over what our role should be in these great humanitarian disasters of the 1990s, such as the genocide in Rwanda and the violence in Bosnia.

Bosnia showed Clinton that military force could be used successfully, but slogans such as “nation building” and “mission creep” entered the language as opposition to policies that would require American military action.

Into this quagmire of opinion and political debate came Iraq, not the Iraq of the 20th century, but the Iraq of the 1990s after the Gulf War when a defeated Saddam Hussein played games with weapons inspectors and held the world at bay.

The authors tell us in many ways that the end of the Cold War only intensified the political debates at home. What were our responsibilities? With globalization and the rise of Islamic terrorism, with failed states and a troubled world economy, nothing seemed simple anymore. Did they ever seem simple, except in retrospect?

The authors don’t carry their theme beyond the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. They write: “When Al-Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11, the modern interwar years came crashing to a close.” For a decade, they say, Americans had shown little interest in national security issues, but now everything had changed. But the old issue of what the role of the U.S. ought to be have not gone away.

Derek Chollet, a graduate of Lincoln Southeast High School, is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security in Washington, D.C., where he also teaches at Georgetown University. James Goldgeier is a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.

Charles Stephen is co-host of "All About Books," heard weekly on NET Radio.