October 30, 2005
AM I MY BROTHER'S KEEPER? (via Robert Schwartz):
The Realist Who Got It Wrong (Charles Krauthammer, October 30, 2005, Washington Post)
In the Oct. 31 New Yorker [Brent Scowcroft] came out strongly against the war and the neocon sorcerers who magically foisted it upon what must have been a hypnotized president and vice president.Of course, Scowcroft's opposition to toppling Saddam Hussein is neither surprising nor new. Indeed, we are now seeing its third iteration. He had two cracks at Hussein in 1991 and urged his President Bush to pass them both up -- first, after Hussein's defeat in the Persian Gulf War, when the road to Baghdad was open, and then, days later, during a massive U.S.-encouraged uprising of Kurds and Shiites, when America stood by and allowed Hussein to massacre his opponents by the tens of thousands. One of the reasons for Iraqi wariness during the U.S. liberation 12 years later was the memory of our past betrayal and suspicions about our current intentions in light of that betrayal.
This cold bloodedness is a trademark of this nation's most doctrinaire foreign policy "realist." Realism is the billiard ball theory of foreign policy: The only thing that counts is how countries interact, not what's happening inside. You care not a whit about who is running a country. Whether it is Mother Teresa or the Assad family gangsters in Syria, you care only about their external actions, not how they treat their own people.
Realists prize stability above all, and there is nothing more stable than a ruthlessly efficient dictatorship. Which is why Scowcroft is the man who six months after Tiananmen Square toasted those who ordered the massacre; who, as the world celebrates the Beirut Spring that evicted the Syrian occupation from Lebanon, sees not liberation but possible instability; who can barely conceal a preference for Syria's stabilizing iron rule.
Even today Scowcroft says, "I didn't think that calling the Soviet Union the 'evil empire' got anybody anywhere." Tell that to Natan Sharansky and other Soviet dissidents for whom that declaration of moral -- beyond geopolitical -- purpose was electrifying and helped galvanize the movements that ultimately brought down the Soviet empire.
The preference for stability at the expense of our fellow men is antithetical to the American ethos. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 30, 2005 7:33 AM
In the first paragraph, Krauthammer "compares" Scowcroft and his obtuse foolishness with Cindy Sheehan and hers. Ouch.
Given the results of Oct. 15, and the impending fall of Ba'athism in Syria (and the untenable situation in Iran), Scowcroft is proving to be about as wise and timely a observer as Al Gore.
Posted by: jim hamlen at October 30, 2005 8:19 AMYou do Realism a disservice. Scowcroftian Realism is useless now because it is not very realistic in our unipolar world. But Realism properly understood is as old as the Republic and has served us well in its place. Bush, as Krauthammer notes, would prefer to be a Realist, but is too much of a realist.
Having said all that, not supporting the Shi'ites and Kurds after the first Gulf War was as bad as any of those "war crimes" of which we're always being accused.
Posted by: David Cohen at October 30, 2005 9:13 AMPre-September 11, at least the Realists like Scowcroft could justify their argument by claiming it worked against the Soviets and Nothing Ever Happened on U.S. Soil. Post-September 11, their policy is akin to a small child trying to hide under their blanket to make the boogie man go away.
Posted by: John at October 30, 2005 9:26 AMIn Kissinger's day, Realism was defensible, although not (very) patriotic. Today, it is neither. David is correct, the old bi-polar situation made direct action abroad much dicier, but it also allowed such interventions to drag on without resolution. Scowcroft's most repugnant statements are those about Reagan and the Soviets - history showed in 1989-1991 how right Reagan was to disparage them. And Scowcroft still thinks that was 'unhelpful'?
It is amusing that Scowcroft sounds so much like John Kerry in this article. We said goodbye to all that on 9/11, and the wiser among us knew in 1992 that the old Cold days were gone.
Posted by: ratbert at October 30, 2005 9:43 AMDavid:
All Realism has ever done is forced us to fight the war that follows on the enemies' terms rather than us dictating the course.
Posted by: oj at October 30, 2005 10:09 AMJohn:
Realism had failed, which was why we elected Reagan to end Detente.
Posted by: oj at October 30, 2005 10:10 AMAnd a side effect of the obsession with stablility is that it leaves people like Snowcroft in charge, unchallenged. And since any action on your part is, by definition, threatens stability, your best course is to do nothing. All in all, very aristocratic.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 30, 2005 11:20 AMOJ --
True, but since nothing major ever happened inside the U.S., the Realists could think they were responsible for it as much as (or even instead of) Reagan, the same way a rooster crowing at dawn can think he's responsible for the sun coming up.
Once 9/11 happened, any pretence that if we just leave everything alone, nothing bad will happen to us went out the window for all but the most delusional in society.
Posted by: John at October 30, 2005 11:43 AMOJ: What war is that? I can think of only one war that we put off too long, and that had nothing to do with Realism.
Posted by: David Cohen at October 30, 2005 4:47 PMPerhaps you can help me. Is sending people to an evil Baathist country like Syria to be tortured:
A) Realist
B) Cynical
C) Evil
D) Principled?
'cause we it.
Posted by: Contrarian at October 30, 2005 7:53 PMContrarian:
Hypocritical. We should do our own torturing, not farm it out.
Posted by: oj at October 30, 2005 8:00 PME economical
F fun
G great
H helpful
I inspired
J justice
K kind
L lucky
M mandatory
N nothing
O ostentaious
P perfect
Q questionable
R reasonable
S super
T terrific
U un-noteworthy
V virtuous
W wonderful
X xenophilic
Y yesterday's news
Z zesty