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

To: Sawdring
While I really like Assads long neck I think the strategy is to side with the side that has the strongest chance of winning and that would be the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a realist foreign policy at work.

Realism is supporting the lesser of two evils. Idealism is saying "a pox on both your houses", standing aside and letting the bigger threat win, even if that is against our interests. Realism is why we sided with the Soviets against the Nazis. It is also why we sided with the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets, even though only one of the sides was a product of the European Enlightenment. At best, the policy you've described is of idealism, and at worst it is one of appeasement, which is why ostrich-cons (i.e. people like Pat Buchanan who believe that the consolidation of East Asia under Imperial Japanese rule and of Europe under Nazi rule was no threat to American security) have, along with liberals, attempted to beautify it by redefining realism to mean appeasement.

6 posted on 06/21/2012 2:59:24 PM PDT by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Zhang Fei
So, who do you side with after the Muslim Brotherhood gets 75% of the vote in Egypt? Do you support the minority or realize that your foreign policy for the past 30 years has become untenable? I bet the calculation that massive unrest throughout the Middle East and North Africa would lead to a major loss of US power if the US decided to support unpopular military regimes.
9 posted on 06/21/2012 6:20:09 PM PDT by Sawdring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

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