Abstract : The single point of agreement among contemporary authors on the subjects of national security and international affairs appears to be that the world has changed as a consequence of the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the post-Cold War environment, old rules and relationships have lost at least some of their relevance, leaving leaders and governments to formulate new strategies for meeting the challenges (or lack of challenges) presented by current circumstances. This paper will briefly outline the environmental changes confronting today's leaders, then describe and critique the Clinton Administration's May 1997 National Security Strategy as the blueprint for achieving America's safety, security, and prosperity in this environment. The critique asserts that while the strategy is admirable for its breadth and ambition, it lacks a compelling unifying theme, substituting idealistic and utopian goals for concrete interests. It also fails to clearly prioritize its proposed interests. This leaves the reader, as well as agencies or organizations attempting to comprehend or implement the strategy, without a hierarchy for resource allocation or a basis for making necessary tradeoffs between competing or conflicting demands. Finally, the critique broadly sketches an alternative construct for a regionally focused strategy based on a clear statement and hierarchy of American interests within a regional, multilateral framework.