Is Paul Wolfowitz for Real? (On the Realist/Idealist divide)

Is Paul Wolfowitz for Real?

Four writers -- Stephen M. Walt, David J. Rothkopf, Daniel W. Drezner, and Steve Clemons -- weigh in on Paul Wolfowitz's critique of Realism and U.S. President Barack Obama.

AUGUST 27, 2009

By Stephen M. Walt

It is easy to understand why Paul Wolfowitz dislikes "realism." On the most significant foreign-policy decision since the end of the Cold War -- the ill-fated invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- the realists who opposed it were right and Wolfowitz and the other architects of the war were dead wrong. No wonder he begins his article by saying that this "is not the place to reargue the Iraq War." I'd try to exclude Iraq from discussion if I were him too, because that tragedy demonstrates the virtues of realism and the follies of Wolfowitz's own worldview.

On the whole, Wolfowitz's discussion of "realism" in the Sept./Oct. issue of FP is about as accurate as his 2002 estimates about the troop levels needed to occupy Iraq and the overall costs of the war. He implies that realists are uninterested in moral issues and claims "there is a serious debate" between realists and their critics regarding the peaceful promotion of political change. But this is a caricature of realist thinking and a nonexistent debate, and it is telling that he never offers any evidence to support his description. The only "realists" he bothers to mention are Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, and he never quotes or cites other prominent realist scholars or policymakers. Having decided to expose realism's alleged limitations, in short, apparently he couldn't be bothered to do some research and read what they had to say.

What do realists believe? Realists see international politics as an inherently competitive realm where states compete for advantage and where security is sometimes precarious. So, realists emphasize that states should keep a keen eye on the balance of power, which makes them wary of squandering blood or treasure on needless military buildups, ideological crusades, or foolish foreign wars. Realists cherish America's commitment to democracy and individual liberty, but they know that ideals alone are no basis for conducting foreign policy. They also understand that endless overseas adventures will inevitably provoke a hostile backlash abroad and force us to compromise freedoms at home.

Realism also emphasizes that other states will defend their interests vigorously, that successful diplomacy requires give-and-take, and that advancing U.S. interests sometimes requires us to do business with regimes whose values we find objectionable. In recent years, realists have also reminded their fellow citizens that nationalism is a powerful force and that most societies bristle, and ultimately rebel, when outsiders try to tell them how to run their own affairs. Realists also understand that no system of government is perfect, and that even well-intentioned democracies sometimes do foolish and cruel things. Most important of all, realists understand that military force is a blunt and costly instrument whose ultimate effects are difficult to foresee, and that states should go to war only when vital interests are at stake.

Contrary to Wolfowitz's claims, realists are not indifferent to moral concerns, including the virtues of democratic government and the value of basic human rights. There is no "debate" between realists and idealists over the desirability of these things in the abstract, and little or no disagreement about whether the United States should encourage such changes peacefully. I know of no realists who oppose the peaceful encouragement of core U.S. values, and Wolfowitz offers no examples of any. As the debate over the Iraq War revealed, the real issue is whether the United States and its democratic allies should be trying to spread these ideals at the point of a gun, or sacrificing other important interests in order to advance them.

Realists oppose such efforts for at least four reasons. First, promoting regime change via military force costs lots of lives, money and prestige. Wolfowitz's war in Iraq led to the deaths of more than 4,300 Americans (plus more than 30,000 wounded), as well as at least 100,000-plus Iraqis (and maybe far more). It also cost the U.S. taxpayer over $1 trillion (and counting). It is frankly hard to see the moral virtue in that "achievement." The present Iraqi government may be an improvement on Saddam Hussein's regime, but it is hardly a model of representative democracy, its long-term fate is uncertain, and the costs of imposing it have been enormous.

<more>

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/27/why_paul_wolfowitz_should_get_real
*

Wolfowitz article that inspired the above critique: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/17/think_again_realism
*

How many GARGANTUAN disasters like the Iraq War does a guy have to engineer before people quit listening to his insane ravings.

Realists wage war for national security, not capitalist imperialism.

The Invasion of Iraq: Realism vs. Imperialism.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6066098

It furthers the interests of the state regardless of morality. If pushing Kism advances its interests abroad it will push Kism. If supporting a dictatorship is seen to be its national interest it will support the dictatorship. The top two national interests are economic and military power. It seeks hegemony. Full spectrum dominance is the elusive goal.

Realists, however, also support the strengthening of international institutions because it can be used to their benefit most of the time. Realists are also mindful of soft power. The neoconservatives felt that we could achieve full spectrum dominance in which case we would no longer need to support international institutions.

Realists will reluctantly avoid war when it is clearly against the national interest. Neoconservatives are batshit crazy.

was a red herring, appealing to the religious/dogmatic authoritarian personality.

It plays well to the cheap seats, and convinces the populace that war is in its best interest. Lying about the costs helps, too.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie... The truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the state." --Joseph Goebbels

True realists would never have done something so reckless as to invade Iraq.

You can argue to not include all of the many, many, (many) times you've been wrong before, and instead focus on "why it will be different this time".

has EVEN ONCE talked about the COST in REAL MONEY!!!

constant help plus all the other injuries.. i only lost a hand in an accident, no war trauma. i suffer serious PTSD. 2 years later i heard my nephew get hurt over the phone while talking to my mother, she's 88, I'm 60, i had a PTSD attack, i really didn't know what my name was for nearly a week, it was one long panic attack.. i am losing it now just remembering.

i can not even begin to understand what our soldiers are going thru. my nieces husband couldn't go to the beach with her and their 2 yr old when he got back because of the sand.., they live in FL,

i say the Four Immeasurables mantra all the time to survive.. and try to keep my job.. it is the only way i can deal with all the suffering people i see, out of work, in poor health.. so many unhappy people

These neo-con assholes have ruined this country. And their followers (sheep) are willing to believe ANY convoluted explanation that would lead us into further ruin. My question is why. What kind of a country do these idiots want to live in?

Because he doesn't really exhibit one, Wolfowitz's is easy to pull apart, and simple to follow the falsehoods he laid backwards towards the truth.

the Big Lie. Otherwise, with his track record and total lack of logic or fact-checking, no one would be propping him up and no one would be listening to his lies. As for Wolfowitz himself, he is either self-deluded to - and maybe past - the point of insanity, or he knows he is lying and has lied to promote unspeakable things. If the former, he needs serious treatment; if the latter, he is a war criminal and should be prosecuted. Either way, his backers in the US and foreign governments (for example, that of Israel) and the media are guilty of knowingly promoting war crimes.