-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 - 12:31 PM
Share
There was a brief flap last week when the Nixon Library released a tape of a conversation between Henry Kissinger and the former president. At one point, Kissinger says "the emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy. And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern."
A number of pundits have already explored what these disturbing remarks tell us about Kissinger himself and his relationship with Nixon, but Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush who is now a columnist for the Washington Post, has decided that the real culprit is the entire "realist" approach to foreign policy. Not only does he consider realism to be a "sadly limited view of power, discounting American ideological advantages in global ideological struggles," he claims that "repeated doses of foreign policy realism can deaden the conscience."
Such statements tell us two things: 1) Gerson hasn't read many (any?) realists, and 2) Gerson hasn't spent much time reflecting on the morality of his own government service. If he had, perhaps his own conscience would be a bit more troubled.
For starters, to use Henry Kissinger as a stand-in for all realists is bogus and intellectually lazy. Most academic realists thought the Vietnam War a foolish waste of U.S. resources, for example, yet Kissinger prosecuted that war with enthusiasm during his tenure as national security advisor and secretary of state. Similarly, most contemporary realists opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but Kissinger supported it (as did Gerson). Before indicting an entire school of thought on foreign policy, therefore, you'd think Gerson would have spent some time familiarizing himself with what realists actually wrote.
Furthermore, Gerson is wrong to claim that realists are indifferent to moral concerns. (See here for a thoughtful discussion of this issue). Realists emphasize the role of hard power and are generally skeptical of idealistic crusades, but not because they think morality has no place in human affairs. Indeed, most realists that I know are deeply moral individuals who wish that humans (and states) behaved in a more ethical fashion; unfortunately, history makes it abundantly clear that bad behavior is commonplace and that prudent leaders have to take that possibility into account.
Realists are cautious and prudent because they know that misguided moral crusades can place one's own country in danger and get lots of innocent people killed. Realists also know that states often have to make uncomfortable compromises, as the United States did when it allied with Stalinist Russia during World War II. For that matter, it made good strategic sense for the United States to move closer to communist China in the 1970s -- doing so put more pressure on the USSR -- even though this policy involved tacit cooperation with a government led by Mao Zedong, one of history's greatest mass murderers. A simple-minded focus on "good versus evil" is useless when the choice is between two equally despicable tyrants.
Nor are realists opposed to using ideals as an instrument of foreign policy, particularly when doing so gives one an advantage over an adversary. After all, because realists see international politics as inherently competitive, they readily support using any weapon that is likely to be effective. The debate over initiatives like the Jackson-Vanik amendment (which linked U.S.-Soviet trade to the emigration of Soviet Jewry) concerned whether these policies were likely to be effective (Kissinger thought not), and whether the costs outweighed the benefits.
Gerson believes Jackson-Vanik (and other human rights initiatives) played a key role in helping bring the Soviet empire down. Realists do not deny that communism's moral deficiencies played some role in this process, but the superior economic and military power of the Western alliance was far more important. In the 1980s, it was U.S. support for the Afghan mujahedin -- who were hardly good liberal democrats -- that pounded the final nail in the coffin of Soviet-style communism.
For realists, in short, the pursuit of moral ends must be tempered by a clear sense of the national interest and a hard-headed calculation of means, ends, costs, and benefits. And the clearest demonstration of that enduring reality is the performance of the administration in which Gerson served. George W. Bush liked to talk a lot about ideals and morality -- most notably in his second inaugural address -- but his decidedly non-realist policies produced a steady erosion of America's standing in the world and tarnished our moral credibility. More importantly, Bush's foolish policies led to the unnecessary deaths of many human beings; people who would be alive today had Bush and his administration paid more attention to realist warnings.
Finally, Gerson's emphasis on moral ideals would be more credible if it were less selective. He's understandably upset by Kissinger's unfeeling remarks about the plight of Soviet Jews, but he seems unfazed by the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died as a result of the U.S. invasion, not to mention the millions of refugees that the war he helped sell produced. Gerson never expressed any moral outrage when Israel pummeled Lebanon in 2006 or killed hundreds of civilians in Gaza in 2009-2009; on the contrary, he defended these actions. Despite his evangelical background, you didn't see him raising moral objections when the government in which he served began waterboarding prisoners. (Gerson ultimately decided that maybe torturing prisoners was on balance a tactical mistake, but as you can read here, he remained pretty ambivalent about the whole business). All of which leads me to suspect that a commitment to foreign policy realism doesn't deaden the conscience, but too much time working inside-the-Beltway can.
EXPLORE:MEDIASPHERE, BUSH'S LEGACY, CULTURE, DISASTERS, HUMAN RIGHTS, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
responds to Prof. Walt's critique in this comment section, because it seems as though Gerson's attack upon realists is flawed beyond measure. Let Gerson defend his views publicly on this forum, which he knows is being read daily by thousands of people!
Kissinger was a hack not a realist
He knew that Nixon was a pretty sick puppy, but loved the power and glamor of being his foreign policy boy. Don't believe me, check out what Chis Hitchens has to say about Henry.
I think Walt's criticism would be the best reply to Gerson, who is overly obsessed to see Kissinger a protector of Jews during the Cold War. Gerson's moral failures in other areas is fine as long as it does not include Jews or American foreign policy regarding Israel. Kudos to Walt for such a wonderful post. Mahir Zeynalov
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the US help China support the Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese Communist invasion? The US embraced some of the most evil groups in history for its "realistic" crusade to limit Soviet influence.
Why do you always make it so hard for me to like an article. I agree with a majority of what you said yet you always have to bring Israel into account. You really have it out for that state for some reason. Israel pummeled Lebanon? Really? If so, Hizbullah wouldnt be in power. Israel killed hundreds in Gaza? yes, a majority of them being terrorists, or as you probably call them, freedom fighters. Even by the worst estimates Israel has the lowest civilian to fighter death ratio in modern warfare, yet you seem to never talk about that.
Maybe you do not like Walt's articles because he tends to have the balls to call out israel on its many misdeeds. And israeli apologists like yourself can't bear to have someone speak the truth about israel. 'israel has the lowest civilian..." where did you pull that crap from? Misinformation is what that is, nothing more, nothing less!
It's pertty obvious isn't it TNP?
Those who despire political realism are by an large neocons and the issue that binds all neocons is their obsession with Israel.
Israel pummeled Lebanon? Really?
Yes really. Killing 15,000 the first time and 1,300 the second time isn't what you would call, showing Lebanon with kisses.
If so, Hizbullah wouldnt be in power
On the contrary. Israel have driven Israel out of Lebanon twice.
Israel killed hundreds in Gaza? yes, a majority of them being terrorists, or as you probably call them, freedom fighters.r
First of all, it was 1.400 and the majority were women and children.
Even by the worst estimates Israel has the lowest civilian to fighter death ratio in modern warfare, yet you seem to never talk about that.
Accordong to what statistics?
Actualyl, Israel ranks among the worst in terms of civlian caualties. In Gaza (2008) and Lebanon (2006) it was 80-90% civlians they killed. in fact, according to Ze'ev Shiff (Israeli journalist and military correspondent for Ha'aretz) and Abba Eben (Israeli diplomat and politician), Israle has always targetted civlians.
"The Israeli army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously. The army has never distinguished civilian from military targets, but has purposely attacked civilian targets."
Ze'ev Shiff
"There was a rational prospect, ultimately fulfilled, that affected populations would exert pressure for the cessation of hostilities, satisfying Israel's goals."
'Abba Eben
Dr Walt is using Israel’s damage to Lebanon and Gaza to illustrate Gerson’s selective touch-feely response to some issues rather others. The answer, of course, is that the realist/non-realist positions are not mutually exclusive and most people entertain them both quite happily. There is nothing in human nature that demands consistency either of belief or action, and any survivor’s passage through events is necessarily pragmatic; the capacity people have to let untidy consequences slip from their minds is all but limitless.
It is not Walt always trying to bring Israel into the business, it is the awkwardness of American foreign policy that is so much connected to secure Israel's national interests at the expense of American national interests. And realists such as Walt would be annoyed to see a small country spending too much of American money and wasting its efforts just for nothing. Coming to Lebanon, please, there is no need to invent America. It is not that old to be a disputed matter, everyone knows Israel's disproportionate use of force against Hezbullah members and brutal treatment of Palestinians. 800 civilians died in Lebanon and 1,500 in Gaza and there were dozens of children and women. You call them terrorist?
Actually, the US has the "worst" civilian to figher death ratio
In WWII, countries were carpet bombing one another. That's hardly a strong indicator of minimizing civlian casualties.
After reading this, a point nagged at me to post it. But first, I thought to look to see if it had already been made, and yours, TNP, actually hit the nail right on the thumb. Walt does raise many good points, but he has the inability to leave his trademark travesty, his own "moral blind spot" about Israel, out of his focus. Your points are well chosen, and more could be made, but the predictability of the anti-Israel forces to come and decry Israel's defenders is, well, predictable. Israel can be criticized, but in an article defining "realism," why blur the point by bringing up your old saw, Steve, especially when you know it will detract from your public actually getting your point? Or is that the point? When you bring up Israel ab initio, no one has to think about what you say, as they get sidetracked by your side issues. Shame a good mind stuck on the Israel thing. Yes, Israel's ratio of civilian casualties is the lowest in the history of warfare, and there are those who will deny that because of their attitude toward Israel, and probably if you scratch them, toward Jews. But if they put their energies into addressing the history of realism, and its implications, a more fruitful dialogue could emerge. The question remains if Walt wants that.
Typically wrong indeed RABJABERMAN
Walt does raise many good points, but he has the inability to leave his trademark travesty, his own "moral blind spot" about Israel, out of his focus.
Israel is one of the cornerstones of US foreign policy, theresore ignoring Israel is like ignoring the role that energy plays in that policy.
why blur the point by bringing up your old saw, Steve, especially when you know it will detract from your public actually getting your point?
Are you saying he should not mention Israel because Israel's defenders wil pile on and try and derail the discussion?
Yes, Israel's ratio of civilian casualties is the lowest in the history of warfare, and there are those who will deny that because of their attitude toward Israel, and probably if you scratch them, toward Jews.
This has nothgin to do with Jews, and FYI, Israel does NOT have the lowest ratio of civilian casualtiesi n the history of warfare.
I prefer the term "criminal" when I think of Kissinger. I hold out little hope to see him brought to justice.
"I agree with a majority of what you said yet you always have to bring Israel into account."-wow TNP
really TNP? those are your standards? how pathetic. seriously, i haven't crying like that since i took my kid to kindergarden on the first day of school.
"Even by the worst estimates Israel has the lowest civilian to fighter death ratio in modern warfare, yet you seem to never talk about that."
where exactly did find this BS? the IDF brouchere? israel has always been and will continue to be one of the biggest human rights violators in the world. Hezbollah, a group of rag tag street thugs spanked israel and put it to bed with its home made bombs and rockets, so it just proved that the IDF is an overhyped group of girl scouts. and now they are on the "bomb iran, or else" march. we all know israel wouldn't dare attack iran by itself, and they can't beat hezbolla, so they spend all their time killing women and children and think they are so tough. anyways, i won't waste anymore of your time considering u might have a an AIPAC meeting to attend.
Hardly Sid - the biggest violators must include Iran, Iraq, Egypt (check how Nasser used mustard gas wmd to turn several k Yemenis into shrieking blisters for the rest of their mercifully short agony filled lives way back in the 60's sometime) Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Russia, China etc etc.
Little Satan is actually quite pitiful at racking up scores of dead innocents when compared to any of her neighbors
Everybody knows the Strip and Hiz'B'Allahland got off easy.
Little Satan could have gone Grozny on 'em.
Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel COURTNEYME109
Hardly Sid - the biggest violators must include Iran, Iraq, Egypt (check how Nasser used mustard gas wmd to turn several k Yemenis into shrieking blisters for the rest of their mercifully short agony filled lives way back in the 60's sometime) Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Russia, China etc etc.
Iran and Iraq were involved in a decade long civil war, so that's hardly a yardstick to measure Israel by.
Little Satan is actually quite pitiful at racking up scores of dead innocents when compared to any of her neighbors
Not when you consider that the percentage of innocents is around 90%+.
Everybody knows the Strip and Hiz'B'Allahland got off easy.
1,400 civlians in the strip is a good effort for a turkey shoot. Southern Lebanon would have been higher had Israel not had their asses handed to them by 2000 fighters.
Little Satan could have gone Grozny on 'em.
No, because littel Satan's army is comprise by Pisbury Dough boys who's idea of a battle is pulling the wings of a fly.
Neoleft writes: 1,400 civlians in the strip is a good effort for a turkey shoot.
The total death toll in Operation Cast Lead was actually around 1300. In a recent interview with Al-Hayat, Fathi Hamad, Hamas’ Interior Minister, acknowledged that Hamas lost around 700 fighters in that operation. His number doesn't include Islamic Jihad, other terrorist groups or Iranians sent to assist with training. Fewer than 200 of the dead were clearly civilians. The civilian death rate was thus somewhere between 15-40%, much, much lower than in essentially any war that has ever taken place.
Neoleft and the others from the Taqiyya squad may not like it, but Hamad's statement can be considered very strong evidence that Israel took very extensive precautions to minimize civilian casualties during Cast Lead.
The total death toll in Operation Cast Lead was actually around 1300.
Actually, it's has exceeded 1400. 1414 as of January 2009.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGMDE150212009
In a recent interview with Al-Hayat, Fathi Hamad, Hamas’ Interior Minister, acknowledged that Hamas lost around 700 fighters in that operation.
I take it you got this information from Dershowitz's column on frontpage.com? It only took 1 minute to see that Dershowitz is misrepresenting the statement by inferring that all members of Hamas are combatants. Neither the FrontPage reprint of the Dersh article, or the original which appeared at Hudson New York link back to Fathi Hamad’s (Hamas’ Interior Minister) interview in Al-Hayat.
Hamas has three wings – the social/political organisations, and the militant wing, the Al Qassam Brigades. My government distinguishes between them, designating only the Al Qassam Brigades as a terrorist organisation. Many countries do not designate Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
Back to Hamad. He specifically states 200-300 of the Al Qassam brigade were killed. The 255 Gaza policemen (“and other factions”) may have been employed by Hamas but that doesn’t mean they were militants. Likewise for the 150 security personnel, paid by Hamas (they may or may not be members), killed.
Dershowitz rationale is that anybody who is either a member of, or on the payroll of Hamas is a combatant – obviously nonsense.
Adding up the numbers, Hamad says 600-700 people associated with Hamas were killed. B’Tselem estimate casualties at 1385, PCHR at 1417. Six to seven hundred people is not “most of the people killed in Cast Lead were militants” as you said. At best, you could accurately say, based on Hamad’s statement: “as many as half those killed in Cast Lead were associated with Hamas, 200-300 of them militants”.
Now given that 600 of the 1,400 killed were women and children, this woudl mean that practially all the men who were killed would have to have been Hamas fighters.
His number doesn't include Islamic Jihad, other terrorist groups or Iranians sent to assist with training.
There were no Iranians sent to assist with training.
Fewer than 200 of the dead were clearly civilians.
Flase again. Well over 300 children alone were killed. Amnety put the number of women killed at 115, though the figure ended up being around 300. 85 men aged over 50 were killed.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGMDE150212009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/14/gaza-city-fighiting-israel-un
Neoleft and the others from the Taqiyya squad may not like it, but Hamad's statement can be considered very strong evidence that Israel took very extensive precautions to minimize civilian casualties during Cast Lead.
Sorry to burst another one of your bubble Marty24, but you asked for it.
alot of big barking from such a little puppy
well that is a nice imagination u have, but it was an internal israeli report that proclaimed that it was israel who lost to hezbollah. so u might want double check that grozny claim, besides israel is supposedly "one of the strongest militaries in the world" backed by billions of U.S tax payer dollars and lots of U.S militairy goodies, and they lost to a bunch of "rag heads" with a WW2 weapons from iran and syria. and it only seems like Hiz B'allah have gotten even stronger and even more sophisticated. little izzy might wanna be careful next time or else its back to the kennel.
I have a bit of a problem with your assertion that the collapse of the USSR had little to do with ideology. There have been many studies that prove that economically USSR could have staggered onwards until 2020 and much longer had it introduced some China styled reforms. Neither can we blame the Afghan war for its collapse since many historians feel that only in hindsight did the Soviet action there look like a defeat- the withdrawal actually boosted public support for the state and Gorbachev's reforms. What brought down the USSR was a dissolution of legitimacy that had its roots in the romantic view of Marxism-Leninism that came to the fore in the mid to late eighties. The post-1988 airing of laundry especially underpinned the connection of individuals to the state. The United States had very little impact on this process and in my opinion may have delayed it through confrontational politics that allowed the Soviet party to rally the population around a perceived threat of a repeat of the Second World War.
Just glance at to this Walt's passage: "For realists, in short, the pursuit of moral ends must be tempered by a clear sense of the national interest and a hard-headed calculation of means, ends, costs, and benefits."
That's what Kissinger did to China (ping pong diplomacy), to Vietnam (negotiations and bombing), to Russia (faulted, but highly effective propaganda and provocative Detente), and to the peace between Israel and Egypt. In all the cases our enemies and the enemies of the free world were handled rather firmly but with due respect of their malicious capabilities. Not a bad resume to me. Sounds very realistic.
Walt should be dealt with exactly same way as Kissinger handled Vietnam. He hates successful Jews in any capacity and in any circumstances. Israel is just a part of his medical condition. In American political culture he is free to publish, provided he finds a publisher), but his nasty racism must meet very firm and very impolite response whenever and wherever Walt spreads his moralizing hatred.
Pupil ignores Watl's key argument
Walt should be dealt with exactly same way as Kissinger handled Vietnam
Walt pointed out that using Kissinger as an example of all realists is grossly dishonest. It's a bit like sugegsting Baruch Goldstein is representative of Zionism.
war planners were realists, sorry.
I must take issue with the above statement that realists opposed the Iraq invasion. While I don't think anyone (the above author included) can speak for all members of any group, the Bush administration's decisions to go to war were made and defended by realists. Only realists, with their trademark inability to see people rather than states could miss the ethno-sectarian fault lines in and around Iraq.
War planners were neo-conservatives, sorry.
I think we need to be careful in distinguishing between realism as an intellectual tradition and neo-conservativism in foreign policy. There is well documented opposition for the Iraq War by many scholars of Realism, Mr. Walt and his sometimes co-author Mr. Mearsheimer included (see "an unnecessary war", Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2003). In fact I would argue that the seeing of states, as opposed to individual leaders and ideologies, by the Bush administration could have avoided the invasion.
I like
=======http://www.goshops.org========
this brand?such as
=======http://www.goshops.org========/a> are promotion now,up 79% off.
=== ====http://www.goshops.org========s have fashion style now.
Great article, but I would argue that our support for the Afghan Mujaheddin did not in fact put the nail in the Soviet coffin at all. That honor belongs to Gorbachev riding the twin tigers of Glasnost and Perestroika.
The Soviets were quite capable of surviving any amount of upheaval and social dislocation. Whatever fallout accrued after their withdrawal from Afghanistan was nothing in comparison to the aftermath of WW2, when they were literally on their knees, and still recovered.
It was Gorbie's enlightened policies that pounded that nail, policies he was developing and building support for well before he took power and well before the invasion of Afghanistan. Without them we would still be in a Cold War with the USSR.
Is it right to say that human rights existed as a legal concept until Helsinki? I would think that Kissinger is just being a product of the pre-human rights legal paradigm when he says that it is a "humanitarian matter", not one in which states can intervene. I think this demonstrates the point that realism is a historically contingent phenomenon (after all many of the discourses of human rights in international law were invented in the Soviet Jewery debates). Where Kissinger did not see a realist tool of state action in human rights, a contemporary realist like Prof. Walt might.
I expanded this in a blog post in case anyone is interested......
http://www.understoodbackwards.net/2010/12/23/sympathy-for-the-devil-henry-kissinger/
Gerson recently wrote in the Washiington Post that we went into Iraq to bring the Irakis freedom and democracy. He and his ilk have now besmirched the nouns and concept of western "freedom" and "democracy" to mean the smashing of millions of lives. Give "American Exceptionalism " a new and very definite meaning.
sic transit gloria americana
Ah, neoconservatism. Will it never go away?
Here's a curiou article on that issue — http://bit.ly/g2fXZ0. Author speculates whether Kissinger was a pragmatic and adherent of Realpolitik approach or merely an Anto-Semite
I'd like to hear Mr. Gerson comment on the following statement by former Israeli Prime Minister (and noted terrorist) Menachem Begin:
"If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel."
Grimly realist, don't you think? But not really any less so than Kissinger. So if Begin gets a pass, so does Kissinger.
It seems (factually) this country's foreign policy has been usurped to serve a third world country's malevolent and uncivilized goals. And once anybody tells the truth as it's, he's un-patriotic or biased, what patriotism and bias you might wonder! Normally, the usual suspects would gang up on him/her...i.e some of the comments here that you might think was orchestrated by the Israeli embassy.
Well it's unconscionable to accept that a superpower would be usurped in the most important element in its power -- foreign policy.
In fact, a lot of us believe that Mr. Walt and his peers are not doing a great job at all to rest this issue for good despite having the right mike and pens to salvage of what’s left of the US foreign policy. Tiptoeing and sucking up to the usual suspects is not enough even though we realize the usual suspects' arsenal of misinformation, but then Ben Franklin and Jefferson had a more formidable empire to challenge.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(33)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE