-
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
Friday, March 16, 2012 - 10:52 AM
Share
I've never paid much attention to forecasts and analysis from Stratfor, the for-profit strategic analysis firm that was rocked by a cyber-attack in December 2011 that compromised its customer data base. I wasn't willing to pay their premium prices, although I occasionally read Stratfor reports forwarded to me by a colleague who was a subscriber. On the whole, I thought they were often interesting but also overly alarmist.
I mention this because Stratfor has taken an interesting step to salvage its fortunes, by hiring journalist and noted realist Robert Kaplan to write a regular feature on geopolitics. I don't always agree with Kaplan's analysis -- I don't agree with anyone all of the time -- but he's one of the few prominent journalists who sees the world through a realist lens and has a clear capacity to think in broad strategic terms. He's also an intrepid traveler and lucid writer who is willing to challenge conventional nostrums, and I'll be interested to see what he has to say from his new perch.
I've complained in the past about the remarkable dearth of realist commentators at major media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and the like. Liberals, idealists, neoconservatives, and former editors all enjoy privileged positions at these august institutions, but none of these organizations has managed to find a card-carrying realist to provide an alternative view on a regular basis. This omission is especially striking given that realism is a well-established intellectual tradition and used to have a respected place in our foreign policy discourse. It's not perfect, of course, but its track record is clearly superior to the liberal and neoconservative commentary that one can read almost daily in the commanding heights of American journalism. Fareed Zakaria's CNN show GPS is a partial exception, perhaps, but when you consider that this humble blog might be the most prominent realist commentary in contemporary public discourse, you get a good sense of marginal realism has become.
Which is why Kaplan's new job is a welcome development. It's not the Washington Post op-ed page -- unfortunately -- but I hope he attracts a lot of readers. You can see his first entry here.
Update: After posting this entry, it occurred to me that I had failed to mention several important realist voices in contemporary policy discourse, including Steve Clemons (now at the Atlantic), Paul Pillar at The National Interest, Robert Merry (ditto), and this site. Les Gelb at the Daily Beast seems to be rediscovering his inner realist of late. Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune also writes from a partly realis, partly libertarian perspective. But I'd still argue that realist ideas remain systematically under-represented in the commanding heights of contemporary media.
AFP/Getty Images
The most prominent "realist" commentary in public discourse
... but when you consider that this humble blog might be the most prominent realist commentary in contemporary public discourse, you get a good sense of marginal realism has become.
Not only that, but consider that you probably have this gig because of your book The Israel Lobby, not because of your scholarship based on "realism".
You bring a lot of eyeballs to this site because of your invective towards American Jews and Israel.
I think it just goes to show -- realism=bad business, Israel and Jew-bashing= good business.
Ever heard of balance-of-threat theory? That is one of the past century's major additions to the realist canon, and this guy came up with it.
...and I'm sure very few have. It just more proof of my point -- people don't know Walt for his academic accomplishments, they know him for his Israel-bashing.
It is ironic, because Steve tells us (ad nauseum) how courageous he is for doing it and how anyone who does it is taking a huge risk. The evidence suggests otherwise, that Israel-bashing is an easy road to fame and a large paycheck, and Steve Walt has profited immensely from it.
As a career Marine officer and future graduate student of IR and political philosophy, I certainly agree with your assessment. Here are a few reasons why, IMHO:
1. Realism is not "sensational" nor can it be made sensational. Sober assessment based on facts devoid of prejudice/bias does not sell ad space/time.
2. A theory of politics underpinned by a universally human concept, power (and the judicious use of it), causes problems at both ends of the IR theoretical spectrum. Secular liberals detest the notion of using "power" to promote self-interest over others in their egalitarian world and moralizing neoconservatives liberally (at least of late) exercise power to spread American-style democracy and the Judeo-Christian values on which it is based. The extreme dichotomy between the two theories, results in a clearly demarcated and unusually passionate debate which plays well on TV or on the op-ed pages.
3. Realism looks to history and the powers which have shaped the world into its current form. Based on the use of power (or misuse of it) over the past century to promote national self-interest, I think many people WANT to believe that the natural human drive which compels us to exercise power in all of its forms, especially its grotesque excesses, can be overcome in the future through the politics of self-righteous moralizing, whether it be secular or religious.
Thus, IMHO, the dearth of realists in the influential areas you mention. As the saying goes, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions (ie. ideas)." An abstract idea is always more perfect and appealing than its manifestation in reality. Who wants to deal in mundane facts when one can publicly navel-gaze, uncover paradigm shifting "insights", pronounce them to all, and get paid/credit for it?
It is these political pundits with sensational theories and abstract ideas which make good TV/Op-Ed's who get us into geopolitical positions or conflicts which the realists are often left to clean-up.
I agree with almost everything you wrote but one point in your second point. That is that secular liberals DO NOT DETEST the use of force. Susan Rice is far from a peacenik. No, we are provided only ONE foreign policy, the NYTimes is hawkish, the lobbys only pay for interventionists of one stripe or another. They all gotta move metal, just as you did as a Marine. Smedley Butler's council is as true today as ever. I guess Libya was better orchestrated from an optics perspective, but it's just as much of a disaster for Libyans as Iraq. Yemen, Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan... not much changes, just the sales pitch each side offers. And, of course the branding, (R's program must never be confused with D's program) even though on foreign policy they're really more alike than Coke and Pepsi.
You are correct. Detest was the wrong word now that I go back and read it.
All good points. Managing the optics of war in this day and age is critical due to social media and instant coverage. One guy with a smart phone at the right place and the right time can have a strategic level impact if not managed properly. This is where media outlets come in. The media (and I presume their audiences also) loves a good verbal jousting contest and/or a sensational story, so bringing on or retaining individuals with ideological or unconventional views "analyze" that strategic impact brings ratings.
But, though I am an ardent supporter of the first amendment, with rights come the responsibility to use them judiciously. That one piece of footage/information can get spun so many ways, in order to support one organization's agenda or another, that tempers can rise quickly and decisions can be made from an emotional or ideological basis rather than a factual one. The result is an escalation of something that never should have been escalated in the first place.
Ideas are a powerful force for good in the right hands, but can become destructive and nihilistic when placed in the wrong ones. I unfortunately do not believe there is a cure for the latter condition which does not involve violence or war with the possible exception of the management/containment of the problem. Much easier said than done, but the Cold War strategy of MAD is a good example. Violence in the name of ideas are often more destructive than violence over geography or resources amongst other reasons. Stalin, Hitler, and Mao being the most recent examples. I hate sounding cynical, but mankind's level of cruelty knows no bounds and his capacity for evil in any form and to any extent will never be eliminated.
But I do hope I am wrong...
No realist would have enthusiastically cheered on Iraq
When I'm not a card-carrying liberal, I'd like to think of myself as Realist. Robert Kaplan is not one, given his calling those opposing the Iraqi debacle "cowards" and pointy-headed intellectuals. A Realist would have applied his knowledge of the fractious nature of the state to the Balkans and known it would fail.
Further, Realists do not support the over-extension of America's military in the cutesy manner Kaplan does
The ideal arrangement would be for The Times to ditch the virtually worthless Thomas Friedman and ask Mr. Walt to write a weekly comment on foreign policy for The New York Times.
you mean the spookie man on cnnjazira who looks western on the outside but is anything but on the inside?
sorry Mr. Walt, I prefer my journalists free of bias, free of conflicts of interest....and I certainly dont want to be TOLD how to think by opinion journalists. I think we should all be wary of people like fareed. How can one advise the president and then go on the "news"....its not news...
its not news, its propaganda, and in fareeds case, its specifically to give obama cover. I think its wrong and I think cnn has become a joke.
"I prefer my journalists free of bias,"....
... "I prefer my journalists free of bias, free of conflicts of interest....and I certainly dont want to be TOLD how to think by opinion journalists"
Yeah, and I'd like to be the King of Londinium and wear a shiny hat*, but that wish is as unlikely as your desire for bias-free journalism.
Tho' it's a bit spooky to think that there are people out there who read the shit that's in the media and mutter to themselves: "Hot-damn, ain't that just the most bias-free, non-opinionated bit o' news I ever did read!!!".
Not you, I hope....
* Thank you, Capt' Mal.
evidently, you prefer all journalism to carry your bias. Evidently you resent being challenged, and are so unequipped to reply, you resort to ad hominem. FZ is one exceptional voice to the chorus cheering war and US hegemony.
your name is funny aipac leader! a good poke at some of the
at some of the wingnuts on here....there's no doubt the anti semitism on this site is rampant.
anyhow, your comment on fareed is interesting. I believe fareed is a smart man, although, his bias is clear. I'm not wild either about how mainstream journalism seems to have become the protector of the left...its an abuse of a very important medium and a powerful one at that in terms of skewing how people look at issues. It is frankly, somewhat orwellian to see how so many so called established news organizations have lined up all on one side of the spectrum. its contrived, its coordinated, you see and hear the groupthink daily, and I do find it a little freaky. It does not make for a healthy society, and it most certainly is a slippery slope . On television, apart from fox, can you think of other center right groups? I can't. All i see is cnn, abc, msnbc, cbs, nbc, charlie rose, pbs, bbc, al jazeera, etc...etc...etc...and for the most part, they all seem and sound alike. They provide very little balance and a whole lot of spoon fed WH talking points. Although I dont love fox, I do find they present more than one side of an issue with guys like alan colmes and bob beckel and juan williams and many more liberals who are permanent members of their network. I dont see any of that on any of the left leaning news group I mentioned above.
Like our Iran attitude or our fawning for Israel? You fail to detect that, but see a pro-Iran, anti-Israel stance?
Delusional, you are utterly delusional.
You have been an arrogant ass from the beginning. Sure you are a "realist" from an IR perspective, but when you make your snarky domestic political references you come across as a two-cent Paul Krugman.
Enjoy the echo chamber.
Aliens! From the Eighth Dimension!
I *knew* it: Our foreign policy just couldn't get so screwed up if real actual humans were running and influencing it.
Just look at the pic here: Doesn't Robert Kaplan look an awwwful lot like Julian Assange? Huh? So tell me, what explains same other than no time to fully shape-shift?
And look at Walt's picture too. If that isn't Lee Van Cleef—"the man with the gunsight eyes"—I don't know who it is.
Where's John Carpenter now when we most need him? We are being assimilated.
"Where's John Carpenter now when we most need him?"
Still searching for his missing Hoffman glasses, I suspect.
That's the problem with stashing them away in a trashcan.....
...lamenting the absence of the great James A Baker. But, then again, those realist voices aren't as good at driving military spending. Panic is such a more effective sales tactic. Remember the sales boom in duct tape and plastic from the Anthrax scare that issued from our own military bases? The incident that the FBI could never figure out who did it?
James A. Baker, we miss you.
you mean baker the anti semite?
oh yes, we jews remember bakers shamir comment...wasn't that about dennis ross? I believe it was...
a lovely man wasnt he? lol...figures scott idolizes him...lol
I got this one in spanish if you're interested (not updated very much due to heavy work at school, but new posts are coming soon)
http://bastardorealista.blogspot.com/
David said:
"You bring a lot of eyeballs to this site because of your invective towards American Jews and Israel."
This is an unwarranted cheap shot and unrelated to the thread under discussion.
Replace "invective" with "informed comment."
In the eyes of some, criticism of Israel that departs from the official hymn book smacks of something malicious or worse... antisemitism.
On the other hand it is understandable. Given the deeply flawed nature of the state of Israel it's unsurprising some American supporters get defensive.
oy vey, the professional propagandists are really being drawn to you like moths to the flame now.
The realist (James Baker) wing of the Republican party seems pretty much non-existent, but on the Democratic side, at least, one of the few bright spots in the modern media firmament has been the return of Zbigniew Brzezinski to public discourse. There's also Gregory Djerejian's great, if far too rarely updated, blog Belgravia Dispatch.
I think, perhaps against most evidence, that after the excesses of Neoconservatism, and the persistent barrenness of establishment "pro-israel" discourse, that Realism is beginning a resurgence. I would credit the rise of China for some of this as well: look how well burying your collective head in the sand is working for you, running dogs. ;)
All good points. Managing the optics of war in this
day in age is critical due to social media and instant coverage. One guy with a smart phone at the right place and the right time can have a strategic level impact if not managed properly. This is where media outlets come in. The media (and I presume their audiences also) loves a good verbal jousting contest and/or a sensational
quotes, so bringing on or retaining individuals with ideological or unconventional views "analyze" that strategic impact brings ratings.
Why you copied the second paragraph of my response to SCOTTINDALLAS and posted it as your comment? I hope it was because you agreed with it.
Yes I agree on both counts. Bush/Cheny have taken no action against Russia and Invaded Iraq with no provocation...Let's get those Repubs out of the white house....
"Is rio orange war always comparateur forfait mobile inevitable ?"
MaximB
A theory of politics underpinned by a universally human concept, power (and the judicious use of it), causes problems at both ends of the IR theoretical spectrum. Secular liberals detest the notion of using "power" to promote self-interest over others in their egalitarian world and moralizing neoconservatives liberally (at least of late) exercise power to spread American-style democracy and the Judeo-Christian values on which it is based. The extreme debt dichotomy between the two theories, results in a clearly demarcated and unusually passionate debate which plays well on TV or on the op-ed pages.
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.
(25)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE