Among the unexpected byproducts of the United States' "victory" in the Cold War is a certain nostalgia for the old world order that crumbled so quickly. At least the nation knew where it stood in the post-World War II bipolar world. Today, the familiar guideposts are gone, and the national quest for new ones range as far back as the early 1900s. Is there a previous era that can tell us what to do now? While the answer to that question is "no," there are lessons and ideas from various segments of the United States' past that will stand the country in good stead as it develops a national security strategy for the 1990s. The first question to ask is as follows: What is the international environment in which this strategy will operate? The world power structure appears to be shifting to a more diffuse, multipolar configuration. The situation is still in flux, however, and at present the United States stands alone as the state with superpower status in all spheres. The USSR retains very substantial military power, but it is rapidly shedding its empire and is clearly not an economic power. Germany and Japan are struggling with the question of whether superpower status can be based on economic power along. The emergence of a unified Europe would change the equation again. If one narrows the focus to regional problems, various other states, including China, become necessary players. Despite its superpower status, the relative power of the United States globally has declined in the past 20 years. Conflict appears inevitable in the current environment, although much more likely on a regional rather than global scale. Whether it is good for the national character is arguable. Part of the reason conflict exists is that power remains the dominant factor in relations between states. But while the environment has changed, basic U.S. interests have not. Overall, the author believes the United States should follow a modified balance of power approach.