New at Reason

November 16, 2006

Michael Young notes the rising influence of realist foreign policy, and urges caution.

Comments

|11.16.06 @ 11:30AM|#

You got to rework that sentence.

|11.16.06 @ 11:53AM|#

We go in and destroy Baghdad, then we allow chaos to fester for 3 years, and now we preside, er, protect, er, do something amidst 50 US servicemen a month getting killed and thousands of Iraqi's. I wouldn't have been too Machiavellian to listen to someone who knows how governing works in an Arab country. It would have been a smart bet.

|11.16.06 @ 12:14PM|#

It just so happened that Bush...forced the realists in his midst--Vice President Dick Cheney, Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, even former Secretary of State Colin Powell--to go along with him...

Funniest line in the piece. Bush didn't "force" Cheny or Rumsfeld to go along with anything. And nothing about Cheney's or Rumsfeld's actions suggests they came out of a 'realist' view.

Michael Young is right that it's 'realism' that got us attacked in the first place. But it's the 'idealism' of our driving our response that has screwed up our world image, limited our options, burdened our economy and gotten tens of thousands of people killed.

Like him, I'd like my realism balanced with a hope-for-democracy chaser. But given a choice, I'll take a realistic, machiavellian approach that leaves more men and moves on the chessboard than the current idiotic boondoggle we're in.

|11.16.06 @ 12:48PM|#

I have a question. Cheney was clearly against trying to take Baghdad the first time around, and even used words like "quagmire" when saying why we didn't want to mess with the internecine conflicts that would arise if Hussein were toppled. Did he change his mind? Or is he being a good trooper, going along with the contrary opinions of others in the Administration?

|11.16.06 @ 1:04PM|#

Having recently been reminded that there is a great deal of misunderstanding of what the term "foreign policy realism" refers to, even among those who use the term, here is the wikipedia definition:

"Realism, also known as political realism, in the context of international relations, encompasses a variety of theories and approaches, all of which share a belief that states are primarily motivated by the desire for military and economic power or security, rather than ideals or ethics. This term is often synonymous with power politics."

fyodor|11.16.06 @ 1:06PM|#

If it was "idealism" that led us into a war to install democracy, maybe we could stand some more "realism". Young implies that the Saudi monarchy is somehow our responsibility, which I've heard many times before but always strikes me as a bit of a stretch. Bottom line: what we do about wanting or effecting democracy in the region seems as important or more so than merely whether or not favoring it is part of the plan.

|11.16.06 @ 1:10PM|#

madpad is quite correct, and Mr. Yound quite wrong.

Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were signing letters calling for the "liberation" of Iraq back when George Bush wanted a more humble foreign policy. Donald Rumsfeld was urging the invasion of Iraq when the fires were still burning in New York, and before a shot had been fired at Afghanistan.

|11.16.06 @ 1:31PM|#

Conservative realism brought us 9/11. Neoconservative moralism brought us the Iraq debacle.

Leaving the Afghan War aside - which was such an easy call that it can fit comfortably into just about every school of thought - every one of the foreign policy successes we've seen in the past decade have come from liberal foreign policy.

Northern Ireland.

The six year cease fire between Israel and Palestine.

Kosovo and Bosnia (when Clinton finally got off his ass)

Self-rule and democracy in Kurdistan

Lebanon/Ukraine/Georgia (to the extent that our diplomacy helped strengthen or embolden the democratic popular movements)

The Israeli/Jordanian peace treaty (to the extent that our efforts brought the parties together)

Each one of these efforts was characterized by a commitment to international diplomacy, cooperation with our democratic allies, an emphasis on humanitarian concerns (life, liberty, democracy, peace, and freedom), and a commitment to letting the people on the ground establish their own future, rather than imposing our own vision on them as if we know what's best for everyone.

Michael Young and other neocons have spent the last five years denying that there is such a thing a liberal foreign policy stands, pretending instead that its practitioners are either anti-American radicals, supporters of Al Qaeda and the Baath, or conservative realpolikers.

He's worked very hard to convince himself, and his readers, that only neocon militarists like himself want to advance a moral foreign policy. Even today, when he admits the failure of his beloved ideology, he cannot admit that there's an option other than moving closer to Henry Kissinger.

|11.16.06 @ 1:40PM|#

joe,

I don't blame Clinton particularly for 9/11, but it certainly can't be attributed to conservative realism. Also, I'm pretty sure you're knowingly cherry-picking your examples. Tsk, tsk. Finally, let's remember that the events that lead up to a certain result are cumulative. It's just like saying that Reagan won the Cold War by himself, when, in fact, it was America standing up to the U.S.S.R. all along that wore the Soviets down.

On the other hand, I've rejected the doctrine of realpolitik here before, so I don't entirely disagree with the, ahem, "holistic" approach to foreign policy.

|11.16.06 @ 1:51PM|#

Pro Libertate,

In his dealings with Arab states, Clinton operated according to the same conservatives realist practices that have defined our dealings with them since Roosevelt. Please do not misunderstand, I was not attempting to single out George W. Bush for condemnation here. A realist foreign policy towards Arab states enjoyed broad support from almost the entirety of our political class prior to 9/11.

"Also, I'm pretty sure you're knowingly cherry-picking your examples." I realize the people are immediately suspicious of any assertion that liberals have done anything right, but refuting my assertion is going to take evidence, not just a statement of feelings.

If someone thinks my list of recent major foreign policy successes is either misleading or incomplete, I invite them to show me.

edna|11.16.06 @ 1:57PM|#

If someone thinks my list of recent major foreign policy successes is either misleading or incomplete, I invite them to show me.

the fall of the soviet empire is a notable omission. same with the nonprolif agreement with n. korea.

|11.16.06 @ 2:00PM|#

If Bush and Wolfowitz are the Othello-ish poster boys for democratic idealism, Cheny and Rumsfeld are certainly the Iagos of the bunch...and not particularly realistic ones at that.

There is nothing either realistic or idealistic in the motives of those two.

While Rumsfeld wanted to kick some Arab ass to flaunt his theories on the future of U.S. military superiority, he dangerously underestimated the roots, reach and effectiveness of terrorism. Cheney is a harder one to pin down.

If Cheney's a democratic idealist, then what does one make of an idealist who courts non-democratic states (jordan, egypt and saudi arabia) who happen to work backroom deals to avoid the ramifications of terrorism?

If Cheney's a foreign policy realist, then what is one to make of a realist who refuses to negotiate, engage or work backroom deals with enemy facilitators (syria & iran) himself to achieve foreign policy objectives?

He's a disasterous miscalculator on foreign policy issues with no ability or understanding of how to leverage relationships with other countries, how to gather or use intelligence or how even the basic machinery of international relations works.

fyodor|11.16.06 @ 2:02PM|#

joe, since you are limiting your time frame to the past decade, that limits the republican presidents who can be discussed to W.

That's not fair! :-)

|11.16.06 @ 2:08PM|#

joe,

I never object to demands for facts, but I'm spending too much time here today, anyway, so I'll let someone else argue that out with you. However, not to be one to cut and run completely, I'll throw in off the cuff the obvious failures in North Korea and Pakistan, the unfortunate inaction in Rwanda, and I'll suggest that the truce in the Middle East happened for reasons a lot more complex than any "liberal" policy. Also, the liberalization of Eastern Europe and other former U.S.S.R. satellites had much more to do with the fall of the Soviet Union than with any specific U.S. policy, don't you think? Sometimes, too--and this goes for anyone in office--things just happen that have nothing to do with what the actions and policies of our government happen to be. Kind of like with economics. Though I acknowledge that the current administration's activist role has done some positive damage overseas, with fewer benefits than we should be getting for the cost in dollars and lives.

In any event, now that I've typed longer than I should, let's not bicker and argue about who killed who, when, after all, we're largely in agreement on what the U.S. should be doing. I'm all for using our influence to liberalize the world, and for being the good guy and the good example whenever possible. Sometimes, we're going to have to use force to deal with unreasonable people, but it should be our last resort, not our first one.

|11.16.06 @ 2:16PM|#

The pile-on to joe is getting nitpicky. The main point is that Young's wish for a kinder, gentler
realpolitik are the silly musings of a whistful, insincere neocon.

Idealstic foreign policy is every bit as deserving of suspicion, scorn and ridicule as idealistic social policy.

|11.16.06 @ 2:21PM|#

edna,

1. I clearly stated that I was talking about the last decade.

2. A good case can be made that it was the Cold War liberal policy of containment that brought down the Soviet Union. The singular contributions Reagan made to that end - the stirring enunciation of liberal principles at the Berlin Wall, and the negotiation of arms reduction treaties (which George Will described as losing the Cold War) - are both examples of foreign policy liberalism more than any other philosophy.

3. I'm not sure where you're going with the North Korea reference. Could you explain?

|11.16.06 @ 2:22PM|#

madpad,

Yes, let us agree. The Neocons are a pain in the ass. A good foreign policy means demonstrating why it's good to be our friend and bad to be our enemy. It involves using our economic power to help nations modernize and liberalize their economies. And it involves living up to the reputation that we have had heretofore of being something different and something special. We may be unsophisticated buffoons to half the world, but we're at least trying to do the right thing. Let's make sure that that "trying" part doesn't get lost in the foreign policy philosophy d'jour.

|11.16.06 @ 2:24PM|#

Pro Libertate,

Let me define my terms here. By "liberal foreign policy," I'm using the definition one would find in poli-sci textbook, not the post-Vietnam Give Peace a Chance/U.S. Our of North America (tip o' the hat to John) stance that many liberals adopted from the early 70s to the mid 90s. Liberal foreign policy may be more selective in its use of force than most of the alternatives, but your statement, "I'm all for using our influence to liberalize the world, and for being the good guy and the good example whenever possible. Sometimes, we're going to have to use force to deal with unreasonable people, but it should be our last resort, not our first one," is an enunciation of the principles of foreign policy liberalism, not a refutation of them.

|11.16.06 @ 2:30PM|#

Pro Lib writes,

"I'll throw in off the cuff the obvious failures in North Korea and Pakistan..." I'm not sure what the reference is to Pakistan, but I have never claimed that liberal foreign policy is without its failures, merely that, unlike the rest, it has achieved some successes in the recent past.

"the unfortunate inaction in Rwanda" is not an example of liberal foreign policy, but of conservative realism. It was a failure to implement liberal foreign policy. A liberal response to the genocide in Rwanda would have looked a great deal like our reponse to the depredations of Serbia upon its neighbors.

"Also, the liberalization of Eastern Europe and other former U.S.S.R. satellites had much more to do with the fall of the Soviet Union than with any specific U.S. policy, don't you think?" I believe the fall of the Soviet Union was the result of a liberal foreign policy, Truman's rollback, even if it fell to conservatives to implement it for the final 20 years. Also, the recognition that our foreign policy can primarily advance democratization and liberation through a secondary, supporting role, and that the heavy lifting must be done by the locals, is an integral part of foreign policy liberalism.

|11.16.06 @ 2:31PM|#

joe,

Like I said, we're not really arguing. Though I do think that sometimes we're (meaning the U.S.) going to fail, whatever we do. Frankly, I'd like our foreign policy to be much less tied to which party happens to be in power this year and more tied to some sort of general philosophy (something akin to what you and I have laid out here). I'm a realist and know that mucking about outside our borders will mean having to kick ass sometimes, but we can do this with a bit more skill and restraint than we have in the past.

|11.16.06 @ 2:44PM|#

Sorry about the threadjack.

Michael Young does make a good point - there is a reason why conservatives largely abandoned realpolitik in the aftermath of 9/11.

|11.16.06 @ 3:04PM|#

Well, I agree with what we should be doing, but I think you're basically calling successes liberal foreign policy and failures conservative foreign policy. I catch your point about these labels not being necessarily associated with political "conservatives" and "liberals". However, I think you are oversimplifying matters. Trying to get people of other cultures to do anything is really hard work. And they often do not behave rationally by our standards. Furthermore, our resources are limited, so we can't intervene in every situation.

Like I said, I'll agree that the latest concept of an appropriate foreign policy is flawed and needs to be changed. I don't want some sort of fuzzy, absolute deference to internationalism, but I also don't want the other extreme, either. We have the means to be quite persuasive, and the U.S. is HUGELY influential in the world.

|11.16.06 @ 3:06PM|#

By the way, joe, your reputation is being besmirched in the Friedman thread by an Ersatz Joe. Thought you might want to know :)

|11.16.06 @ 3:09PM|#

...but we're at least trying to do the right thing.

I'm all for doing the right thing and aspiring to noble goals. But sooner or later, reality will come a knockin'.

Best those noble efforts be lorded over by realistic folks anticipating (rather than dismissive of) the consequences.

Have you considered that it's not the fact that we went to Iraq that's really done us in. It's not even the bungling.

It's the fact that no one - not even most Americans it seems - believes we did it for sincerely idealistic reasons.

So what good is idealism if no one thinks you're sincere?

|11.16.06 @ 3:24PM|#

I don't want to come across in all of this as a flower child. I think there's utility in our having standards. Call it state-level ethics, if you want. Just like with an individual, if you have a reputation for being trustworthy, etc., that reputation can pay off. That doesn't mean that you don't shoot the guy who comes barging into your house, but it also doesn't mean that you subsidize the burglar in another neighborhood.

|11.16.06 @ 3:36PM|#

"Well, I agree with what we should be doing, but I think you're basically calling successes liberal foreign policy and failures conservative foreign policy.":

No, Pro Libertate. I'm not calling the argument "saving Africans from genocide doesn't advance our national interest, so we shouldn't get involved" conservative realism as a partisan snipe. I'm calling it that, because that is what conservative realists would call it. Ask them; they'll tell you that themselves. It's what Bob Dole was saying about the Kosovars, and it's what conservative realists say every time there is mass murder in a place that doesn't have oil or geo-strategic importance.

"Trying to get people of other cultures to do anything is really hard work. And they often do not behave rationally by our standards. Furthermore, our resources are limited, so we can't intervene in every situation." Absolutely. Foreign policy liberalism needs to be modest to be successful.

|11.16.06 @ 3:53PM|#

No discussion about our foreign policy future or past can go without mentioning our own history of U.S. bureaucratic infighting.

It's one thing to have a president who espouses a certain foreign policy philosophy or goal.

But then comes congress with goals sometimes no more idealistic than simply opposing someone else.

Then there is the State Department, which until the past few years was often (though not always) the most effective balance of idealism and realism by virtue of the experienced staff and their wealth of contacts and resources.

Sadly, much of that apparatus has been wrecked by Bush's tin-eared, ham-handed foolishness.

Pile on still the foreign policy needs and goals of the various military branches, the CIA and the Commerce Department. And how about lobbyist, the Energy Department, civilian contractors and the CFR.

Often the goals of each of these areas runs at cross purposes or simply practical purposes that run counter to other goals.

The problem with idealism as a motivation for war is that it often fails miserably to anticipate these issues because the Idealist can't get past their own happy-shiny long enough to realize that others - even ones on their own team - aren't so noble.

|11.16.06 @ 3:55PM|#

In other words, once war is iminent, gritty realism better be front and center to the goals and objectives. Leave the idealism for the Peace Corps.

|11.16.06 @ 4:00PM|#

madpad,

Good advice, and yet...

I can't get FDR's downplaying of the holocaust out of my head.

|11.16.06 @ 4:14PM|#

For the record, I would've attacked Germany when they occupied the Rhineland.

Just thought I should point out that had I been in charge of France, the Franco-German Ass-Kicking of 1936 would've been a minor footnote in history. Which would have been followed by a footnote about the strange and short-lived career of some Schicklegruber fellow ;)

|11.16.06 @ 4:19PM|#

All the labeling does nothing but obscure, rather than illuminate the principal issues. Since the fall of the Soviet Empire (which had quite a bit to do with a few years of relatively less violence between the Palestinians and Israelis, by the way), the principal foreign policy challenge facing the United States has been, given the centrality of Persian Gulf oil to the health of the global economy, and thus the U.S. economy, how to effect the extraction of said oil without greatly adding oxygen to the fires of the fourteen hundred year old conflict between the the Islamic world and the West, with other industrial powers now part of the mix, and in a global environment in which destructive technology grows ever more ubiquitous and ever less restricted.

Some think that the model employed for the past seventy-odd years, of being the treasurer for Islamic despots, in return for oil extraction, will continue to be manageable for several decades into the future. They are akin to the American Whigs leading up to the American Civil War, in that they have entirely too much confidence that what is inherently unmanageable can be managed in a way that avoids titanic bloodshed.

Some think that the only way out of this conumdrum is if a counter-example to the current paradigm is created, of a large self governing, Islamic, oil rich, population which interacts peaceably and profitably with the rest of the world. It was the counter-example of the western economies, after all, which really undercut the ideological pillars of the Soviet Empire, thus hastening it's collapse.

Unfortunately, those in power who believe this have either been silent as to how this is to be accomplished, or even been silent as to how difficult such a task is, or worse, have dishonestly or stupidly (likely both) put forth the notion that such a task is easy.

Still others, some of who I've encountered in this forum, along with the other schools of thought, when faced with the intractable nature of this issue, fall back into fantasies of Congress passing an oh-so-well-calibrated laws which will make the centrality of Persian Gulf oil fade to a distant memories, as Tom Friedman drives his corn cob-powered Lexus to work each morning.

My thoughts? It's a helluva goddamn mess. Thank you, and yes, I quite often have such penetrating insights......

|11.16.06 @ 6:42PM|#

Am I the only one who finds it difficult to believe that Bush would use a word like "Machiavellian," much less understand what it meant?

|11.16.06 @ 6:54PM|#

No, that was actually the first thing that occurred to me...

|11.16.06 @ 7:01PM|#

I can't get FDR's downplaying of the holocaust out of my head.

joe...how could that possibly negate the validity of my point? Need more info, man. I don't know where you're going with that.

If you're trying to draw some parallel 'tween my assertion and fighting WW2 for noble reasons rather than realistic, I would say that there were a heck of a lot of realistic reason for entering the war that also happened to be noble.

|11.16.06 @ 9:20PM|#

madpad,

I'm just saying, FDR had every realist reason in the world to put humanitarian concerns about religious minorities halfway across the globe at the bottom of his list.

|11.16.06 @ 9:58PM|#

It's a common myth that FDR 'downplayed' the holocaust.

Check out "Saving The Jews" by Robert Rosen. He researched and debunks many of the modern fictions that have developed over the years.

In it he excerpts speeches throughout 1942 where Roosevelt denounced the actions of the Nazis (well known by this time) and warned of war crimes trials.

Beyond all of that, jews were just one part of the equation. The freedom of most of the free world was at stake. FDR had every realist reason in the world to put humanitarian concerns about freedom and justice at the top of the list. The holocaust was hardly the sole motivator. 'Downplaying' may simply mean not ranking it high enough to suit you.

And what are you picking a needless disagreement with me for? As I recall, I was supporting your point.

|11.16.06 @ 10:01PM|#

Too support my point about realism, were the holocaust the only issue, realistically speaking it might not have been realistic to engage the Nazis. But that's all academic now...

|11.16.06 @ 10:23PM|#

But there's no doubt it would have been noble...

edna|11.16.06 @ 11:42PM|#

I'm not sure where you're going with the North Korea reference. Could you explain?

who negotiated the agreement? what was the outcome?

as for the ten year limit, that's ridiculous; it limits us to clinton (who relished bombing a country that was no threat to us nor pretended to be) and bush (who relished bombing a country that was no threat to us and pretended to be). can't say that i see much of a difference other than bush stupidly deciding to occupy without conquering and clinton preferring to lob a rocket or two into a third world country anytime the news on the domestic front was bad.

|11.17.06 @ 4:11AM|#

"That's too Machiavellian," someone said.

I have to agree, that seems way too high-browed a thought to have ever entered W's head.

Bandar was right to warn the Americans that winning in Iraq meant sometimes playing dirty.

Yes.

Bush or Rice was right to maintain a sense of decency.

Uh, no, not really.

Using the bad guys to get the bad guys, in order to stablize the whole system, would in fact have been an act of decency.

The fact that Americans refuse to use Machiavellian techniques openly was one of my chief reasons for opposing the Iraq adventure in the first place. We aren't willing to play the game the only way that might work.

If the U.S. is going to reinvent itself in the Middle East, it will have to blend Bush's democratic goals with the realists' pursuit of interests, but in such a way that democracy and liberty are consistently made a priority.

Well that sounds nice and heady, but I have no frickin idea what it might actually mean. Does it mean we're only going to twist their arms in nice ways?

The only way the Iraq adventure could ever have "worked" was if first the invasion went flawlessly, and then the new goverment grew up instantly and flawlessly.

Seems they never found any "Government In A Can, add water and stir."

|11.17.06 @ 8:10AM|#

The fact that Americans refuse to use Machiavellian techniques openly...

Your post, Genghis, was beautiful. But a minor point: aren't 'Machiavellian techniques' - almost by definition - not used openly?

I think what you meant to say was, "The fact that Bush refused to use Machiavellian techniques at all..."

Rumsfeld's bullying and Cheney's stubborn refusal to negotiate are not Machiavelian. Neither is courting governments and people with little to no power to effect change.

It's clear these loonies (Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney) are good at playing the game of politics to obtain power. But they are stunningly obtuse and incompetent when it comes to actually weilding it. They have no vision and even less administative skill. "My way or the highway," is neither Machiavellian nor effective.