The sun is shining on George Shultz

Posted By Stephen M. Walt Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - 2:27 PM Share

My nominee for the "most callous statement recently uttered by a prominent U.S. diplomat" goes to George Shultz, who was interviewed by New York Times reporter Deborah Solomon a couple of weeks ago. Solomon asked Shultz a few questions about his role "stumping for the war" and serving as chairman of the "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq." Shultz reveals that the committee never actually met and that he didn't even know who all the members were, which seems like a pretty cavalier approach to a major foreign policy decision.   Solomon asks him if he has any regrets about the invasion (he doesn't, though he wishes it had gone quicker). And then, after some not-very insightful questions about whether the Bechtel Corporation (which Shultz used to head) made money from the war, there is the following exchange:

Solomon: 'It's been seven years since we invaded Iraq, and there is so much sorrow in the world. I don't see things getting a lot better.'

Shultz: 'You ought to come out to California. We have problems out here; but the sun is shining, and it's pleasant here on the Stanford campus.'

 

I grew up about 4 miles from Stanford and did my undergraduate studies there. Shultz is absolutely right: It's a very pleasant place, and I'm sure it's even nicer when you're a multi-millionaire. But to dismiss the death and destruction that the United States wreaked on Iraq -- as well as all the other suffering that occurs elsewhere in the world -- with a blithe reference to California sunshine strikes me as emblematic of the indifference that underpins a lot of American meddling around the world. So long as the sun is shining where we are, we don't care all that much about what our foreign policy decisions are doing to other people. And then we get surprised and irate when some people in some far-flung part of the world resent what we are doing, and when a few of them try to do what they can to pay us back.

The United States continues to interfere in lots of places around the world in part because most Americans -- and especially privileged individuals like Mr. Shultz -- are immune from the immediate consequences of these actions. We borrow the money to pay for foreign wars, and we rely on sacrifices by an all-volunteer force. We fail to see the connection between our heavy-handed diplomacy and penchant for using force and the persistent anti-Americanism that occurs in the places where we've interfered most often. And when you're the 800-lb gorilla in the international system, you can allow your foreign policy to be swayed by well-connected "letterhead" committees that never actually meet and whose funders and motives remain hidden. Great power allows states to behave irresponsibly, in short, because others suffer the consequences and future generations get stuck with the bill.

What's most striking about Shultz's offhand comment is that it came from someone with a long record of public service and generally sensible views on a lot of foreign policy issues. He was hardly a "chicken-hawk," having served in the Marines in World War II, and his tenure as secretary of state helped rescue the Reagan administration from some of its worse excesses and internal divisions. But for men (and women) like him, the world is a stage on which to operate, and the consequences for others are just "collateral damage."

Needless to say, statements like that are why I tend to look at the world through a realist lens.  However much we may deplore it, most leaders worry primarily about their own positions and their own country's narrow self-interest, and they don't spend much time or attention thinking about whether what we are doing is good for others. There isn't a lot of altruism in the conduct of foreign policy, even though great powers always tell themselves that their motives are pure and that they are really acting for the greater good. It would be nice if things were different, but that ain't the world we live in. 

EXPLORE:ACADEMIA, BUSH'S LEGACY, CELEBS, DIPLOMACY, DISASTERS, IRAQ, STATE DEPARTMENT, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
 

DAVID IN DC

7:47 PM ET

July 20, 2010

Steve, that's the same

Steve, that's the same Deborah Solomon you slandered in a previous post, saying she found terrorism romantic. I read the original text, and it doesn't say anything of the sort. Everyone here has seen you take exception when people misrepresent your words like that.

For some reason, it's OK when you do it.

 

CHRISWALKER

9:08 PM ET

July 20, 2010

About "thier own country's narrow self-interest" ...

I think it remains to be seen whether one could label these actions to be in the country's self-interest. I would be inclined to think that they aren't, and in fact, will be recursive loops whereupon a policy bent on "security" made us less secure... just as the National Intelligence Estimate told us the very first year it was released following the invasion of Afghanistan, be it a political tool or not.

I think increasingly, realists will discover that the liberal-minded or idealistic ideas they grudgingly come to characterize as being outside their model of "the world we live in" are actually in defense of our interests in the long-run. But perhaps the future damage is quantifyably smaller than the present's gains? If so, show me the gains; I haven't seen any. Otherwise, the anti-Americanization of Central Asia and the Middle East probably isn't worth it.

 

SETHCHADBOURNE

7:17 AM ET

July 21, 2010

thanks so much for blogging while on vacation!!!

Your voice is just about the only rational one on foreign policy in the U.S. I have been travelling in Africa this summer, and it has been a welcome respite to avoid U.S. media outlets, with their imperialist biases as regards the M.E. I have enjoyed watching Al Jazeera English which is far more thoughtful and analytical than any U.S. news channel (and less biased). Your blog is the only American media I pay attention to regularly while in Africa. I have been sufering from withdrawal the last four days, not having a piece of yours to read. Thanks for taking the time to post while on vacation!!! Enjoy your holiday!

 

JACOB BLUES

4:29 PM ET

July 21, 2010

Walt plays with words again.

I wonder which part of the statement "INTERVIEW HAS BEEN CONDENSED AND EDITED." Professor Walt doesn't understand.
.
.
The 10 Questions column in the NY Times Sunday Magazine is hardly a place for profound insight and deep introspection. Coupled with the fact that the interviewee's comments may have been changed to some degree or the discussion that led up to the comments that were printed may not have been included should make it suspect at least before Walt should declare it a major policy announcement or ideology that has taken the United States to the brink . . . or worse yet, provide some basis for the hatred formented towards the US and subsequent violence against its citizens.
.
.
Unfortunately, reality or realism has anything to do with Walt's comments. Just another straw man for him to attempt to knock about.

 

NIUBI

6:33 PM ET

July 21, 2010

shopping

welcome to: http://www.madeshopping.com

The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time.

free shipping

competitive price

any size available

accept the paypal

http://www.madeshopping.com

SOCCER JERSEY 16USD
jordan shoes $32

nike shox $32

Christan Audigier bikini $23

Ed Hardy Bikini $23

Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15

ed hardy short_tank_woman $16

Sandal $32

christian louboutin $80

Sunglass $15

COACH_Necklace $27

handbag $33

AF tank woman $17

puma slipper woman $30

http://www.madeshopping.com

 

PAUL FROM NO VA

12:49 AM ET

July 22, 2010

Re. George Shultz's Shining Moment

Give the guy a break, Walt. He's 90 years old and and out there in Ca. frying in the sun. Most folks at that age - if they're sufficiently fortunate to reach that age - are at least a taco short of a plato grande. He was a tedious, snotty fellow to begin with, and now, used to holding forth and have his interlocutors dote on his every word, he speaks without thinking and continues to be tedious and snotty.

 

PETER N W

12:51 AM ET

July 23, 2010

Go on vacation

Trust me, no one will care what you have to think, let alone say, at the age of 90. Despite claims of tediousness and snottiness, George Schultz is a great American and if this is the kind of thing that is going to set you off right before vacation, I say hurry up and go. Don't be in a hurry to come back if this is going to be a typical posting.

 

ATHEIST

2:55 PM ET

July 28, 2010

HOLY MOLEY

George Shultz sure comes off as a douchebag in that interview.

 

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Read More