Do I ever bother you with that “required reading” stuff? No, I don’t. But Michael Rubin’s article in today’s WSJ is an “ought read,” I think. It’s prophylactic without being difficult to apply.
“Rubin . . . Rubin. That’s a funny name for a Puerto Rican, isn’t it?”
This one from Paul Greenberg on the subject of political inevitabilities is good, too.
– Shorter Rubin. Return to Clintonesque diplomacy, with principle replaced with obsessive delusional ideology.
Yeah, he does make a good point (Rubin.)
We saw the failure of the policy of handshakes, arms deals and reconciliation with a dictator (Saddam).
We have the option NOT to do such things with Assad and Dinnerjacket. Look, unless we’re going to play the ‘realism’ game full out, with ‘handshakes’ in front and the dagger at the back, its not going to work.
Iraq should be an object lesson on that. I hope they know what they’re doing.
Because if they pull the same naive thing, we will end up with more wars on our hands.
If they think it WILL work with Iraq in the long run, then it may be a case of rinse-and-repeat.
I have my doubts, but I also know that the whole thing is a very speculative art. Sad that it involves the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.
The only thing they will permenantly respect is our strength. Scaring them or appeasing them is a temporary fix.
This should be simple: you are the most powerful country in the world. Outline your principles, stick to them. Repeat as necessary.
Let everybody else adjust to you. We should not coddle despots or appease violent fundamentalists. Period.
The only reason people brand me “conservative” now is because modern liberalism isn’t liberal, and modern neo-conservatism is Wilsonian and idealistic. I haven’t changed much—I was a critic of foreign policy realism during Bush I’s presidency, and I remain a critic of it to this day. Sadly, those who have embraced the post-modern worldview (based on a shallow understanding of the philosophy that underpins it) are mostly on the left, and so it is really no surprise (to me, at least) that the left is now embracing “contingency” as a pillar of its foreign policy. They’ve become downright Kissingeresque, in fact.
Hope that sits well with them at cocktail parties.
Realistically, Syria and Iran couldn’t be much worse than the US, and realistically, among the right sort, saying so might get you laid.
– The CYA begins:
– Wesley Clarke didn’t waste any time preparing the “shift the blame to BushCo” agenda when he responded to the Question:
“Now that the Democrats are in control of the House and the Senate, what will is the Democrats new plan for Iraq?”
His answer:
“We’re going to ask the administration to come up with another plan.”
Surprise, surprise. The Dem “plan”.
America may be the most powerful country in the world, but in Asia, we’re just another militia.
I think the neorealists will ask why we should continue trying to influence events there…
Agreed, Jeff. It seems that choices are made based on how the fit with an ideology rather than whether they work or not. I for one can see a case for the handshakes and arms deals, but in order to be realistic, you have to have a real dagger at your enemy’s back. We never really did; or we found that our ‘dagger’ was not as effective as we had liked.
However, I’m with you here– cutting deals with these guys has caused us nothing but problems in the last century. Peace through strength and all- but we have to do it all the way, just like the ‘realpolitik’—the ideological versions are just realpolitik lite or strength lite.
Which was the problem with Bush, the whole executive basically was doing Strength lite. That is, ‘neo-con compassionate naivete’. Stuck on the ground and pointless.
If we are the strongest, then we should be the strongest, period. If you somehow suspect we are evil and unjust, then you have fallen already. Its not a coin where we’re either perfect or evil– its a state of constant improvement, upward movement fueled by on one hand realism (a scientific process) and on the other hand by a grounding in the Almighty. Even an agnostic such as yourself can see the need for anchoring principles.
We’re given the choice between realpolitik lite and strength lite, we choose neither. I would prefer realpolitik or strength over their lite versions anyday.
We cannot be pleasers of men; we must do what is right for our nation.
Stuffing it down Islamists’ throats is perhaps the best prophylactic.
Is Asia not part of the world anymore? Christ I need to get out more.
We also need to keep a large consideration for the nature of Islamic Jihadists, a problem that is in concert with and complicating all middle eastern regimes. That is the one dynamic thsat was not as significant a player during Reagan’s foxtrot with both Saddam and the so-called “moderate” mullahs in Iran.
All of these governments walk some kind of a fine line with the jihadists. Iran has great sway with Hizbullah and Hamas and has attempted to develop contacts with Al Qaeda. While they would like the West to believe that Shiites and Sunnis can cooperate, the ongoing situation in Iraq is not helping that perception. 2000 years of religious enmity does not disappear because of a few proclaimations.
Most of the rest of the ME regimes face various concerns with Al Qaeda and other radical groups because of their perceived apostasy. To differing degrees they are trying to walk the “Saudi” tightrope of public crackdowns balanced by private money and tacit approval. Syria is also struggling with that perception as Baathists are loathed by most of the jihadist groups. All of the cooperation is tinted by distrust and religious condemnations, none of which will necessarily stop one client state from attempting to raise their “manlaw” shadow in the ME by enabling a massive attck somewhere, preferably in the US.
The Realism doesn’t work with ME muslim autocracies because (with few exceptions) those people understand power first! Negotiating is seen as a de facto admission of inadequete strength. When bin laden talked about the US retreating from Somalia it resonated with much of the muslim world. They recognize our overwhelming military superiority but they are becoming less and less convinced that we have the will to use it. The more they feel this way, the more emboldened they will be in acting themselves or through their convenient proxies.
Know the enemy has never been more important and will continue to be critical for the days ahead. Unfortunatly there are too many pie in the sky idealists who think that they can apply the “reasonableness doctrine” to a group of people hunger for a return to 8th century glories and power.
But our principles aren’t consistent. We love democracy and women’s rights and ponies. Bad. Bad Saudi arabia. But we also love cheap gas and petrochemical products. Good good saudi arabia.
Its not ‘simple’ to iron outline our principles.
What was that you said about getting hit with a nerf arrow? You really do simplify the world like a 5 year old. Makes you a good, probably great, dad. But terrible at this sort of stuff.