Kudos to Stephen Walt (again) for pointing out that realists are not NeoCons and hardly can be considered as interventionists. Kudos to Walt for pointing out that NeoCons and liberal internationalists have controlled U.S. foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Personally I would go further and say that these factions have controlled U.S. foreign policy since the downfall of Nixon. So what would U.S. Foreign Policy look like if realists were in charge? Walt addresses this in his Foreign Policy blog.
Not sure if I fully agree with his commentary on off-shore balancing or with what Walt considers a "normal" relationship with Israel. For my two cents I do agree with his assessment on war with Iraq, the "War on Terror" (whatever the heck that means), and the lack of adventuristic, interventionist behavior that would be the norm if realists were still listened to in foreign policy decision-making circles.
The U.S. would not be worrying about lost sons and daughters in Iraq and Afghanistan to the extent made possible by 8 years of Bush and 4 of Obama. We certainly wouldn't be worrying about whether Putin is upset or not by silliness like missile shields and NATO expansion. As a realist is there really any reason for NATO to still exist? Plus, we wouldn't be in the business of making everyone else's business our business. Realism is not about adventures in intervention, realism is about maintaining your own position in the hierarchy of power through pursuit of security or pursuit of power. Of course, we can make arguments about type of realism on display, I would argue that Walt's comments are particularly forceful if one accepts a defensive realism as preferable to other potential realisms.
But, thanks again Stephen Walt for pointing out that the hacks in Washington, D.C. on both sides of the political aisle are not to be confused with realists.
Not sure if I fully agree with his commentary on off-shore balancing or with what Walt considers a "normal" relationship with Israel. For my two cents I do agree with his assessment on war with Iraq, the "War on Terror" (whatever the heck that means), and the lack of adventuristic, interventionist behavior that would be the norm if realists were still listened to in foreign policy decision-making circles.
The U.S. would not be worrying about lost sons and daughters in Iraq and Afghanistan to the extent made possible by 8 years of Bush and 4 of Obama. We certainly wouldn't be worrying about whether Putin is upset or not by silliness like missile shields and NATO expansion. As a realist is there really any reason for NATO to still exist? Plus, we wouldn't be in the business of making everyone else's business our business. Realism is not about adventures in intervention, realism is about maintaining your own position in the hierarchy of power through pursuit of security or pursuit of power. Of course, we can make arguments about type of realism on display, I would argue that Walt's comments are particularly forceful if one accepts a defensive realism as preferable to other potential realisms.
But, thanks again Stephen Walt for pointing out that the hacks in Washington, D.C. on both sides of the political aisle are not to be confused with realists.
No comments:
Post a Comment