New Blog in Town
The Washington Realist, by Nikolas K. Gvosdev of the National Interest, who would, among other things, like to clear up some misconceptions about Realism as doctrine - make that doctrines:
There is a great deal of diversity among those who call themselves realists, as I noted in a piece for the Winter/Spring 2005 issue of SAIS Review . But realists of all camps–liberal, ethical, democratic, hard, communitarian, etc–adhere to two “organizing principles”: The first is a skepticism about utopian projects, no matter how noble in inspiration. The second is an appreciation for the limits as well as the uses of power; that lacking unlimited energy or resources, power must be used selectively. In keeping with this realization, a country’s interests must be prioritized–with the greatest effort reserved for averting threats that first and foremost affect a country’s very survival.
I personally disclaim “realist” as a title. I’m an anti-interventionist. Perhaps that makes me another level of “realist,” since to my mind “the national interest” includes avoiding fatal cases of hubris and sullying our professed ideals in the name of idealism. But I’ll take a coldblooded conservative power-balancer over a liberal hawk any day of the week (I’m not saying Gvosdev is such a fellow) because megalomania is a very bad thing in a superpower.
Hat tip: Logan.
Comment by Nell —
November 22, 2005 @ 10:49 pm
That’s what I wish more people would take to heart about Rep. Murtha’s proposal. Murtha sees the near-term possibility of the snapping of the country’s stretched volunteer armed forces, along with the unlikelihood of their being able to accomplish anything even if snapping is averted — much less of their being able to accomplish anything worth the risk of snapping. In short, he’s seen that withdrawing from Iraq is in our national interest, perhaps essential to our national survival.
Comment by Robert Speirs —
November 23, 2005 @ 3:10 pm
How about withdrawing from Kosovo? How about Germany? Japan, anyone? Korea? Bush is the only president in forty years to have actually done anything effective about terrorism, with absolutely minimum casualties, and all people can do, when victory is in sight, is tell him to give it up and go back to the days when Al Qaeda didn’t have to fear anyone. Disgusting.
Comment by Jim Henley —
November 23, 2005 @ 3:37 pm
You, uh, realize plenty of people have urged these very moves over the years, right? I personally say Yes to every one of your suggestions, even, to coin a phrase, ”Faster, please.”
Handing terrorists a whole new country in a much more central location than the previous one they made do with is certainly doing something ”effective about” terrorism from the terrorist perspective. If I were a terrorist I’d love the President as much as you seem to. But I’m not.
Pingback by Victory is in Sight § Unqualified Offerings —
November 25, 2005 @ 8:19 pm
[…] quo; Weather Report | Main | November 25, 2005 Victory is in Sight according to a comment downblog from the other day. Robin Wright explains just what &# […]
Comment by Glaivester —
November 27, 2005 @ 10:46 am
What needs to be understood is that any reasonable definition of victory in Iraq involves the U.S. being able to pull all of its troops back from day-to-day security operations without Iraq collapsing. Progress toward victory would be drawing them down without Iraq collapsing (this doesn’t mean we don’t keep troops in Iraq, just that whatever troops we keep there would not be involved in day-to-day internal security (they could, however, provide security by acting as a deterrent, as they do in Korea).
As long as the troop levels remain at or higher than invasion levels, we are not making progress toward winning.
Also, when neocons say we can’t set a timetable because the insurgents will wait us out, he is implicitly suggesting that when we leave, the Iraqi security forces will not be able to take over. That is, we will not be able to train the Iraqi security forces to take over for us within any publicly acceptable timeline.
Comment by Jim Henley —
November 27, 2005 @ 10:48 am
Well put, G.