Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Think Again: Realism (Wolfowitz on Obama Foreign Policy)
Foreign Policy ^ | AUGUST 24, 2009 | Paul Wolfowitz

Posted on 08/28/2009 1:25:56 AM PDT by SolidWood

"We're All Realists Now."

No. Pragmatists maybe, but not "realists." Barack Obama's election as U.S. president delighted many people, especially the self-described foreign-policy "realists" who accused his predecessor, George W. Bush, of denying reality in favor of dangerous idealism. Obama has praised the realpolitik of Bush's father, George H.W. Bush. And a White House official recently told the Wall Street Journal, "[Obama] has really kind of clicked with that old-school, end-of-the-Cold-War wise-men generation." The elder Bush's national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft, called Obama's election a rejection of the younger Bush "in favor of realism."

Of course foreign policy should be grounded in reality. Americans agree that foreign-policy goals should be achievable -- that the United States should match its ends with its means. What sensible person could argue with that? That is simply pragmatism. But "realism" as doctrine (I'll spare you the quote marks henceforth) goes much further: In the words of one leading realist, the principal purpose of U.S. foreign policy should be "to manage relations between states" rather than "alter the nature of states."

Unquestionably, what makes realism seem so plausible today is skepticism about the war in Iraq and the belief that it was part of a crusade to "impose" democracy by force. I believe, to the contrary, that the purpose of the war was to remove a threat to national and international security. Whether the Iraq war was right or wrong, it was not about imposing democracy, and the decision to establish a representative government afterward was the most realistic option, compared with the alternatives of installing another dictator or prolonging the U.S. occupation. In Afghanistan, the same choice was made for the same reasons after the Taliban fell, and many realists not only supported that decision, but argued for putting even more effort into "nation-building."

(Excerpt) Read more at foreignpolicy.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; foreignpolicy; idealism; iran; iraq; neocons; obama; realism; wolfowitz
Lengthy but interesting article by Wolfowitz.


1 posted on 08/28/2009 1:25:57 AM PDT by SolidWood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

bump for later read.


2 posted on 08/28/2009 2:18:51 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

Wolfowitz?


3 posted on 08/28/2009 4:55:14 AM PDT by ruination
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

good read


4 posted on 08/29/2009 2:29:03 PM PDT by Pride_of_the_Bluegrass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson