Krauthammer on Foreign Policy

[Epee_Pox]

Wow. I wish I'd said this.

Heck, I wish I'd even thought it.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ar...aid=12001023_1

[L.O.A.S.]

Good article. I never before heard of realism in regards to foreign policy. I'm suprised by the lack of responses to this thread.

[gojujay]

I printed it to read it at my leisure... (probably in the can or is that TMI?)

[Moses]

Well, really, there's not much for many to say when they, as you, LAOS, have never heard of the realist theory of international politics (although, cynically, I would argue that people have the most to say when they don't know **** ).

I really have not much to say, either, other than I disliked the article. I found the first third irritatingly pessimistic and narcissistic, and I found the final third to be vainly-masked neo-conservatism (or, if you prefer, aggressive hegemonic realism). I, as a product of "The Atlantic" and the minimalist sector of the realist theory, couldn't help but get rather queesy in the innards after reading Krauthammer's article.

Mia du cendoj,

-La Mose

[gojujay]

Having read the article, I can now opine; A good explanation of the NeoCon take on foriegn policy. Do I agree with it? Some yes, some no. I'm too much of an isolationist I guess

[Gav]

I particularly enjoyed the bit about Bush snr being responsible for German reunification...

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by Moses

Well, really, there's not much for many to say when they, as you, LAOS, have never heard of the realist theory of international politics (although, cynically, I would argue that people have the most to say when they don't know **** ).

Despite not taking any poly-sci classes, I still found the article interesting. I just skimmed over the really big words and took away the following: 1) Senior George Bush foreign policies were good, but could have been much better, 2) Clinton's efforts (Arafat) were a waste for the most part, 3) George W. Bush's spread of freedom policy is having a tremendous effect on the shape of the middle east, although the final verdict still remains to be seen.

Its the part of the article that discusses the democratization of the middle east that I'd thought would have drawn more discussion.

[esskreemr]

I didn't comment on this article because I found it hard to finish. It makes a number of ridiculous assumptions and generalized comments that are beyond absurd. He lavishes praises for the neo-con "realist" policy while blaming just about every failure on "liberal internationalism".

For me, the neo-con reality can be seen easily. Nearly 1/2 trillion dollars spend to remove a dictator that we helped prop up. The monthly civilian death toll in Iraq now exceeds the murder rate during Sadam's regime. The constituion of Iraq is going to be based strictly on Islamic law. A good deal of the world is hoping that we fall flat on our face. No matter how many oil rich countries we attempt to plunder, our energy dependency on oil is a sinkhole from which it take us centuries to recover while our children are going to get footed with the bill for the so-called "freedom" of the Iraqi people.

The stated reality of the neocon doctrine is war. Perpetual war. Guess who profits most from the state of perpetual war? The neocons themselves who have their hands deep in the cookie jar of the companies that profit from war.

[Inquartata]

Without even looking at the article, I know it is tendentious and its observations skewed by partisan beliefs.

That also applies to the post just before this one.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Without even looking at the article, I know it is tendentious and its observations skewed by partisan beliefs.

That also applies to the post just before this one.

I'm sure you have a point somewhere.

[Moses]

Besides the one at the end of his sabre (and we all know how often that is used), I doubt it.



-Da Mose

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by Gav

I particularly enjoyed the bit about Bush snr being responsible for German reunification...

Well clearly the Germans couldn't have been responsible; they were too busy listening to David Hasselhoff!

[Inquartata]

Well, an American has to be responsible for everything, you know. The only distinction being that in America we think we're responsible for only the good things, while elsewhere they think we're only responsible for the bad...

Seriously though, that part left me nonplussed as well. And I'm a Republican.

OK, I finally read the piece. Here's the rest of my analysis
( besides "tendentious and skewed by a partisan worldview" ).

Firstly, I wince at the term "neoconservative". I don't think that those who have named it have sufficiently distinguished it from conservatism generally to make it stand on its own as a political philosophy.

Take "inevitably" out of the fifth paragraph and it strikes me as pretty accurate.

The liberal responses to the Iraq venture is also pretty accurate. I recognize both in the arguments of people on this very board ( sometimes simultaneously ).

"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom". So what happens if and when we "succeed too much" and freedom becomes ubiquitous? Does it then become indefensible and evaporate?


I do not agree with the premise that the eventual defeat of the anarchist murder campaign ( I refuse to dignify it by the term "insurgency" ) is inevitable, or with Ajami's assertion that they cannot "turn back the clock". Clearly they can tip the country into civil war, and that's just the sort of environment out of which Saddam rose to power in the first place. The Baathists might not reemerge from the conflict again, but almost certainly it would be another dictator, Sunni or Shia.

"...the US did not go into Iraq for oil or hegemony but for liberation". Reductionism. And it omits any mention of the fear or WMDs, which is at the very least disingenuous. No one is going to forget that that was one of the justifications advanced.

His analysis of why Arabs have been distrustful of American intentions is right on the mark, IMO. I have said for a long time that nations whose rulers last for decades cannot but view the policies of a nation whose ruler changes every 4 or 8 years as a flighty and unreliable weathervane...especially when as often as not the whole ruling philosophy reverses itself completely with the change in Administration. Which means that even if Iraq is somehow successful in moving to democracy and stability and influences other nations in the Middle East as the article suggests we must still get nervous again three years from now.

Eh. Boosters like Krauthhammer present the positive aspects of a conservative policy and assert that they alone define the policy. Detractors like Ess present the negatives and insist that they define the policy. It's the blind men and the elephant.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

For me, the neo-con reality can be seen easily. Nearly 1/2 trillion dollars spend to remove a dictator that we helped prop up. Etc.

Heh. Usually it's the liberals who break out the old saw about knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

The monthly civilian death toll in Iraq now exceeds the murder rate during Sadam's regime.

And that's our fault. Yes, I keep forgetting, everything's our fault. We "made" the terror groups blow up mosques and schools. Perfectly mild-mannered peaceful fellows that they were before we arrived...

The constituion of Iraq is going to be based strictly on Islamic law.

It is? How prescient of you!

A good deal of the world is hoping that we fall flat on our face.

How noble.

The stated reality of the neocon doctrine is war. Perpetual war. Guess who profits most from the state of perpetual war? The neocons themselves who have their hands deep in the cookie jar of the companies that profit from war.

Thank you, Ike.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Heh. Usually it's the liberals who break out the old saw about knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Since there are very few cost-benefit analyses that give us a positive outlook on a "war" that will drag on for decades...

And that's our fault. Yes, I keep forgetting, everything's our fault. We "made" the terror groups blow up mosques and schools. Perfectly mild-mannered peaceful fellows that they were before we arrived...

Yes, it is. We broke the infrastructure. One of the stated reasons, I can't remember if it was post war or pre-war (they change so frequently now), was that the terrorists would fight our soldiers there instead of us fighting the terrorists here. We aren't "making" the terrorists blow up mosques and schools, but we have created an environment conducive to terrorism.

It is? How prescient of you!

No prescience necessary.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...ationworld-hed
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/arti..._ccc=2&cid=842
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...m_x.htm?csp=36
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/171/story_17162_1.html

If the goal was to replace a secular dictator with an Islamist state... "Mission Accomplished!"

How noble.

Noble or not, it was a general statment but most likely true.

Thank you, Ike.

You're welcome but my name is not Ike. Or is that a REALLY dated reference. You still own a dot-matrix don't you?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Since there are very few cost-benefit analyses that give us a positive outlook on a "war" that will drag on for decades...

And, you don't see any value in spreading freedom, democracy and the end of murderous dictatorships and political repression, or in stabilizing the remaining oil reserves in the world, etc?

How much blood and treasure did we expend in our proxy "hot" wars and shadow Cold War in the struggle to prevent the spread of Communism? And before that, to prevent the victory of fascism? Were those resources wasted, merely because they did not offer a quick, easy triumph? Should we have done "cost-benefit analyses" on them before deciding to get involved?

And---what exactly WOULD the cost of a jihadist victory be? Because that is what we are talking about, IMO: the world-wide struggle against Islamic extremism. Iraq is not I believe just an isolated backwater, an independent little war having nothing to do with the broader war---no more than Vietnam was.

Yes, it is. We broke the infrastructure.

Eh...and this is why the murder gangs are plying their ugly trade, you think? This is why foreigners are filtering in to blow themselves up to the greater glory of Allah, and dislodged Baathists are kidnapping and killing? Because "we broke the infrastructure"?

We aren't "making" the terrorists blow up mosques and schools, but we have created an environment conducive to terrorism.

I think that environment already existed...in fact, it used to be institutionalized. The only difference was that it was the official policy of the State there before, and it was much more sophisticated and effective than merely blowing stuff up. No?

If the goal was to replace a secular dictator with an Islamist state... "Mission Accomplished!"

Hyperboly. Read again the last half of the Chicago Trib article you posted. Then tell me how it justifies your use of the word "strictly" in regard to Islamic law.

Noble or not, it was a general statment but most likely true.

And people of good conscience should all be pulling for them to be vindicated, I suppose? ( That's the impression I always get when someone argues that one or another "they" doesn't like our policy. )

my name is not Ike. Or is that a REALLY dated reference.

Yes. Eisenhower was the inventor, or at least one of the most influential proponents, of the notion of the "military-industrial complex".

As a reference it pre-dates even me. But I read.

You still own a dot-matrix don't you?

"Still"? Sir, you underestimate the full scope of my Luddism! I never got past the typewriter stage as far as ownership is concerned!