Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
REAL Realism
It is easy to understand why Paul Wolfowitz dislikes "realism." On the most significant foreign-policy decision since the end of the Cold War -- the ill-fated invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- the realists who opposed it were right and Wolfowitz and the other architects of the war were dead wrong. No wonder he begins his article by saying that this "is not the place to reargue the Iraq War." I'd try to exclude Iraq from discussion if I were him too, because that tragedy demonstrates the virtues of realism and the follies of Wolfowitz's own worldview.
On the whole, Wolfowitz's discussion of "realism" in the Sept./Oct. issue of FP is about as accurate as his 2002 estimates about the troop levels needed to occupy Iraq and the overall costs of the war. He implies that realists are uninterested in moral issues and claims "there is a serious debate" between realists and their critics regarding the peaceful promotion of political change. But this is a caricature of realist thinking and a nonexistent debate, and it is telling that he never offers any evidence to support his description. The only "realists" he bothers to mention are Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, and he never quotes or cites other prominent realist scholars or policymakers. Having decided to expose realism's alleged limitations, in short, apparently he couldn't be bothered to do some research and read what they had to say.
What do realists believe? Realists see international politics as an inherently competitive realm where states compete for advantage and where security is sometimes precarious. So, realists emphasize that states should keep a keen eye on the balance of power, which makes them wary of squandering blood or treasure on needless military buildups, ideological crusades, or foolish foreign wars. Realists cherish America's commitment to democracy and individual liberty, but they know that ideals alone are no basis for conducting foreign policy. They also understand that endless overseas adventures will inevitably provoke a hostile backlash abroad and force us to compromise freedoms at home.
ALI AL-SAADI/AFP/Getty Images
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Daily Reads
Affiliations
Recent Writings
So, realists emphasize that
You're talking about Minimal Realism, right (aka "Balance of Power" folks)? There's another school of Realism*, Maximal Realism, which is basically all about Bandwagoning as opposed to Balancing (but you already knew that), and they'd disagree with some of those goals.
While they'd agree it's foolishness to get into needless conflicts, they'd point out that to some extent, you have to show that you are tough enough so that other states will bandwagon with you rather than balance against you.
I'd say it's more than Realists place a strong emphasis on the "domestic/foreign" distinction. Basically, they'd argue that states' domestic focii and interests should by no means be the same as their foreign policy ones. Think John Quincy Adam's statement: "America is the well-wisher of democracy everywhere. It is the guaranteer of only its own" or something like that.
In other words, from a Realist point of view, a state should pursue whatever benefits itself and its citizens abroad, regardless of morals and principles insofar as doing so doesn't hurt the achievement of its goals.
*I think "Realism" is a loaded term. As I heard one defense analyst suggest elsewhere, Comparative Rational Assessment of Power might be more useful. ;D
Wolfie and Madoff
It must be depressing for such an honest guy like SW to try to argue with the Wolfies of the world.
In the normal free enterprise economy, one earns with clever judgments and timely investments , one loses with poor judgments and the crimes of inside-trading, etc.
But the Wolfies with due calculation and smears and plain lies never apologize because after all their goal was warm-hearted and sincere: Israeli Imperialism.
The Wolfies, despite their knavish and foolish judgments, and their silence about the atrocities like Gaza, are clearly supported by the international War Party--and therefore can make life for the individual American and the commonwealth of Americans difficult.
We all need to keep in mind that the Mother of all Madoff Schemes is.... the Jerusalem-DC Ponzi Protection Service.
It operates slightly differently: It promises individual Americans and especially congressmen & -women and media executives a NORMAL WORK WEEK--as long as they keep quiet and vote the right way for the most ludicrous elements of Israeli theology---
the shelling and bombing of school yards are perfectly ethical goals--because such foster Israeli Holy Imperialism!
Let us hope that one of these days, Wolfowitz and Co. will be sent away for 150 years for their numerous assaults on the constitution--- (and in the Middle East)--- silence about the Slaughter of the Innocents in January, i.e, 410 dead children.... and twice as many kids injured.
Until then, I suppose Walt needs to answer Wolfie's theological smears and PW's prayers for Israeli Holy Imperialism.
I reported this post a while
[double posting deleted]
I reported this post a while
I reported this post a while ago as a test to see whether Walt's "censorship" was applied equitably here. (The parts that aren't off topic ranting are simply personal attacks.) It seems it is being allowed to stand.
I have had Walt remove multiple posts of mine, for the sole reason of being off-topic. Given Walt's body of work here on FP I'm not too surprised there's a double standard.
"I have had Walt remove
"I have had Walt remove multiple posts of mine, for the sole reason of being off-topic."
LOL. That can't be the standard or everthing posted by wadosy would have been deleted.
It's not a standard simply
It's not a standard simply because it isn't applied evenly. The last time I had something deleted, it was an exchange between Jthomas and I about Chas Freeman. Nothing inflammatory or personal in our posts. I forget what the post was about, but it wasn't a Freeman post, so definitely off-topic for the thread (though a topic about which Walt has posted numerous times, so on-topic with respect to the blog). There may have been two or three posts other than ours on that comment thread (the wadosy/Clint entity must have been on vacation or something), so it's not like we were crowding out a good on-topic discussion.
Is it really any surprise that the guy who carefully selects/cherry picks sources based on whether they support his desired conclusions and has an echo-chamber blogroll would also have a double standard about which comments he "censors"?
I found his Wolfowitz's
I found his Wolfowitz's analysis to be superficial and most of the critiques, including Professor Walt's, more or less spot on.
David Rothkoff's analysis also provides one of the most accurate and succinct descriptions of Professor Walt's hypocrisy:
"It's also revealing that, although some realists promote the idea of a less meddlesome United States, when pushed they simply reveal that they mean we should only meddle where they think it is wise. (Pressure on Palestine bad, pressure on Israel good.)"
Rothkopf's sentence is neither analysis nor accurate,
but a diatribe - at least it is succinct, so you're 1 for 3.
Realists don't promote less meddlesome foreign policy per se, but that all meddling should be judged by the best cost/benefit analysis that we can manage. And that doesn't mean just counting the inputs and comparing to the desired outcome, but taking into consideration things like other actors' perceived interests, unintended consequences, likelihood of success, etc. What realists deem wise are the actions that are justified by this exercise.
Then there is the real reason you cite Rothkopf - his inane bad/good attack. Of course, no realist would ever agree with this manichean statement. One thing that a realist would say, without regard to the proposed goal of any pressure: We have numerous direct ways to pressure Israel, so it has a good chance of changing Israel's behavior; while our options to pressure Palestinians are scarce and indirect, so it is not likely to achieve our aim.
So I guess we should put
So I guess we should put pressure on Karzai to make concessions to the Taleban and on Maliki to make concessions to the Iraqi insurgents because that is where we have influence?
Only four percent of Israelis now think Obama is pro israel and 51 percent think he is pro palestinian...not the kind of numbers that give you much influence over an elected government.
Nevertheless, Netanyahu has agreed to halt any natural growth for six months to see if the Palestinians will reciprocate. My guess is that they will just ask for more..once again proving to the Israelis that concessions get them nothing.
Not relevant
Did you read "without regard to the proposed goal of any pressure" in my post? Of course we shouldn't put pressure on anything just because we can. Have any real objections?
I guess not: Obama's popularity in Israel certainly doesn't qualify as a basis of influence. I was referring to foreign aid, military aid, and our veto on the UN Security Council. Putting those in play, (which I acknowledge would be politically risky at home) would be the direct ways to put pressure on Israel.
On Netanyahu, you are misrepresenting his position, which is to retain natural growth for the settlements indefinitely. And what exactly do you think he is asking for from the Palestinians in response to this imaginary gesture? But the larger point about peace talks is that as long as the discussion is about potential settlement freezes, Bibi has won the larger issue by avoiding final status negotiations.
Just what concessions has Israel given that have yielded nothing? Note - withdrawing from Gaza is not a concession, put a unilateral policy decision that the Gaza settlements were unsupportable.
"It's also revealing that,
Walt's pushing Minimal Realism here, which basically argues that being too active and pushy on the international front will lead to "balancing" against the pusher/hegemon/whoever.
Aside from that, well, yes. Realism never says there is anything immoral about meddling per se, but that you should only meddle carefully, when your most important interests are at stake. At its heart, Realism is supposed to be a specifically amoral philosophy.
Man, I hate semantic debates
New Rule: Whoever uses the most "scare" quotes loses.
Wolfowitz admitted he wanted to use them through the entire piece, but didn't to save some keystrokes: EPIC FAIL
Rothkopf uses them freely for the terms under debate, adds a derogatory "policies" and somehow works "pro-life" into the mix: FAIL because of extra negative credit for grandstanding on Israel and Palestine.
Drezner doesn't go whole hog, but adds an elementary school flavor by comparing capital "R" to little "r". I'd give him a gentleman's C, but I would rather return it for editing until he learns proper form on linking. Two YouTube links to old movies? Screwing up the link to the person you're criticizing (who didn't write the article you're reacting to)? Making sure to link to yourself on both of your media platforms? Even if one is about zombies? Also gets extra negative credit for trashing Walt through his book.
Walt uses "realist" in the beginning and end of his essay, but only referring to how Wolfowitz uses the term, so that's fine. But he misuses quotes several times: "there is a serious debate"; "achievement"; "spread democracy" and "peaceful rise". B
Clemons - sit down for this - not one single scare quote. A+++++++
More intelligent commentary (aka my blog)
Wolfowitz
I was struck by the non-sequiturs and irrelevancies in Wolfowitz's piece. Presumably, the significance for Americans of encouraging democratic transitions is that democratic countries are better partners and lesser threats to American interests than authoritarian regimes. But the cases he uses to make this point are inapt. For instance, he returns several times to the Philippines case. Yet, the only discernible change in that country's external behavior was to kick the US out of its military bases. Wolfowitz also uses the Libyan case, which, as Professor Walt notes, did not involve regime change at all. The Libyans were brought around by threats and inducements to abandon whatever WMD program they may have had. Kaddafi still reigns. Also, when Wolfowitz quotes Obama to the effect that democracy is good, he cites not one instance in which Obama endorses the notion that forcible imposition of democracy serves American foreign policy goals. Obama is not shown to support, say, Condi Rice's Washington Post column which endorsed the 'democratic peace' almost as if lifted from an undergraduate paper. No doubt, Wolfowitz favors democracy promotion because democracy is a value in its own right. But as for showing that the effort results in a more peaceful world in which American values prevail, he simply failed to make the case.