The International Realist

Contrary to expectations when starting this blog, AntiWar.com has a second installment on realist foreign policy being the way to go. In short, the article argues that, in order to offer a different foreign policy than the neoconservatives and Democrats offer, one needs to look at either realism or isolationism. Isolationism being unpractical, the author analyzes realism as a way to foster American interests in the world while avoiding dilemmas like Iraq. Some highlights are below.

Thus, Washington should act to protect and promote U.S. interests. Such a perspective typically characterizes the “realist” school, but there are variants of “realism.” To focus on advancing American objectives does not mean doing everything for anything. It means recognizing that the U.S. has a range of objectives and a range of tools to advance those interests. The means used should be thoughtfully calibrated with the ends sought.
…
Where issues are more vital, Washington can, and sometimes must, do more, including economic sanctions, military threats, and war. But such cases are not common and such steps are not for the faint-hearted. Coercion should be reserved for truly serious and, in the case of military action, vital interests. That is, when America’s territorial integrity, basic liberties, constitutional system, and economic prosperity are at risk.
…
[T]hat is, the U.S. is not entitled to wage aggressive war to lower energy prices, prop up foreign dictators to improve the local investment climate, invade socialist nations to prevent nationalization of corporate assets, train authoritarian security forces to ensure the survival of a U.S.-friendly regime, and so on.

While this is a useful analysis for a way forward in most of the world, there is still no policy prescription regarding the current state of the war in Iraq and terrorism. Now that Iraq is “broken,” it is in the American interest to “fix” it. How best to do that remains a matter of debate (outside of the Whitehouse, that is). That is why the current liberal position, personified by Ned Lamont, demonstrates a lack of intellectual depth. As much as the war in and occupation of Iraq was and is a horrible idea, leaving the country in its current state is an even worse idea. Until the “coalition” and the Iraqis can stabilize the nation’s politics and economy, the actions of the Bush Administration would leave America–and the rest of the world–in a much worse position than prior to the war. Unfortunately, the Democratic (and Republican) Party’s inability to create a plan to secure peace will likely lead to a furtherance of policy that harms US interests regardless of which party controls congress after the mid-term elections.

Technorati Tags: 2006election, iraq, antiwar.com, realism