Once again, one of Ms. Kleinfeld's posts reads like something you'd find on the op-ed page of a high school newspaper. "Abso-*****-lutely." Yes, rad. Ms. Kleinfeld is tragically out of her league.

Where has realism gotten us? Let's see: the United States is the world's most powerful country with the world's strongest economy. Can realism take all the credit for that? Of course not. That would be as absurd as blaming realists for all problems in Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or Latin America.

What alternative, exactly, would Ms. Kleinfeld have proposed (at the time, not with 20/20 hindsight) in Iran, Afghanistan, or Latin America? Would she and her naive liberal internationalist idols simply have turned a blind eye to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? What was the liberal internationalist alternative? I'm sure economic sanctions or a strongly-worded UN condemnation would have convinced the Soviets to leave Aghanistan. Did the US subsequently screw things up in Afghanistan? Absolutely. But don't blame "realism" unless you can give us a reasonable alternative. (And, incidentally, the Afghanistan policy was a product of the Reagan administration, which was not particularly "realist." Many realists would have opposed actively supporting the Afghan opposition because of questions about its relevance to US national interests.)

As for Saudi Arabia, yes, supporting the Saudi regime has literally provided the fuel for an enormously successful economy. Without that oil, the US would not be nearly as comfortable a place to live as it is today. Again, what's Ms. Kleinfeld's alternative?

I'd go on, but I'm about to become ad hominem, so I'll stop. All I'll say is I wish tpmcafe would restrict its regulars to people who are actually qualified to talk about these important issues of the day.

Posted at December 13, 2006 7:35 AM in response to Answering Ivo: Should Democracies Unite?

I wonder if there are rivers of chocolate now flowing through bucolic Princeton with gumdrop trees blooming on their banks.

At some point, this simply boils down to the idealism of Slaughter and Ikenberry juxtaposed to the realism suggested by their myriad critics. One can wish all one wants for a cooperative, peaceful world in which international institutions are effective stabilizers of the international system. Many have had that wish before. Others recognize that while this wish may be a noble one, it's unlikely to be realized in international politics anytime soon. If that's the case, then all countries, including the United States, are better advised to pursue a prudent policy that is ever cognizant of the threats posed to them by others' capabilities and the threats posed by their own capbabilities to others.

This realist prescription does not, of course, preclude cooperation as a way of addressing threats (alliances, after all, are at the core of realism). It does, however, warn against having unwarranted faith in international institutions that are constituted by and comprised of self-interested nation-states.

Posted at October 23, 2006 3:57 PM in response to What Americans Will Vote for on Foreign Policy

I don't think I've "painted myself into a corner," but I am a pessimist when it comes to international relations. I just don't think democracy is easily imposed from abroad, whether it be by the United States alone or in conjunction with international institutions.

As for the democratic peace, again, I think a world entirely populated by liberal democracies would be a desirable thing. I just don't think that type of order is easily engineered, and I don't think it's likely to arise organically anytime soon. And remember that the key to the democratic peace is *liberal* democracy. As Fareed Zakaria has pointed out, illiberal democracy (such as contemporary Russia or Pakistan) is hardly a bargain. Liberal democracy is not easily established, especially if the local population has not yet accepted the rights and responsibilities that come with liberal, constitutional democracy. The United States should certainly encourage the growth of democracy everywhere, but we should not overestimate the efficacy of our encouragement. And we should not pursue policies in the cause of democratization, like invasion and occupation, that actually make America weaker, not stronger.

So, if you believe as I do that an idyllic world of liberal democracies is not likely to arise anytime soon (despite our proclaimed best efforts) and if you question the ability of international institutions to provide order and stability as I do, then what's the alternative? The prudent and modest use of American power to protect US national interests.

Posted at October 17, 2006 4:44 PM in response to Princeton Project Strikes Back, Part II

My alternative is similar to the offshore balancing alternative laid out in Steve Walt's response to the Princeton Project. The United States should only use military force in cases of a clear and present danger to core US interests (i.e., the US homeland and important US allies). The only possible exception to this should be in cases where a genocide is underway. The United States should understand that others are likely to be skeptical of American power and are not likely to rollover when the United States exerts that power (even when we believe the US may be doing it for good). The United States should endorse the spread of democracy everywhere, but it should be careful to avoid taking steps that actually make the spread of democracy less likely, not more. The United States should always be cognizant of the benefits and costs of using its military capabilities, especially for purposes like spreading democracy. The United States should not have undue faith in the ability of international institutions to transcend or transform national interests. The United States should recorgnize that there are limits--and fairly low limits at that--to what it alone can accomplish in shaping the structure of the international order. I could go on at length, but in short, the United States should use its power in a modest and prudent way to best ensure the safety and security of the United States.

As for the interstate cooperation out there that I apparently need to explain, please be more specific. Are you referring to the EU, which continues to run up against the old European bugaboo of nationalism? Or are you referring to the UN, which continues to be used by the most powerful states only when it is most convenient to them?

And finally, you write, "And you demand too much. The belief that US foreign policy should be geared towards spreading and consolidating democracy around the world does not require the belief that it is necessarily possible." I wholeheartedly disagree. We are talking about the foreign policy of the most powerful and influential country in the world. This is high stakes poker. We simply must be in the realm of the possible because the consequences of a misguided idealist grand strategy are too significant to do otherwise.

Posted at October 17, 2006 4:38 AM in response to Princeton Project Strikes Back, Part II

Just a few days ago, Dean Slaughter was accusing others of "not getting it" and asking them (in her remarkably pedantic tone) to, "Come on guys." Ironically enough, it's now clear that it's Slaughter and her co-author who don't get it. It's Slaughter who fails to see the irony of attempting to impose democratic values on another society. The question here is not about the virtue of American values. The question is about the role that the explicit and aggressive promotion of those values should play in US foreign policy.

I and other realists would have little problem with Slaughter's claim, "Democracy based on a foundation of sufficient prosperity, education, and institutions designed to check and balance power is the best means of achieving that balance of liberty order yet found by humankind." But unlike Slaughter and Ikenberry, realists recognize the limits to what the United States--even (or perhaps especially) a hegemonic United States--can achieve in promoting those values. Realists recognize that the United States perhaps does more harm than good to its interests by misguidedly and unsuccessfully trying to impose these values on others.

Would the world be a better place if it was populated entirely by liberal democracies? Absolutely. Is it within the power of the United States to make that a reality? To build that type of order, as Slaughter and Ikenberry would have us do? Realists are skeptical, and unlike Slaughter and Ikenberry, realists recognize that there are likely to be real costs for trying to do so.

Again, the Slaugher/Ikenberry arrogance--true American-style hubris--is astonishing. They continue to refer in all their posts to the "Princeton Project" as if that legitimates what they have written by implicating all with whom they consulted on this project (even though the report is distinctly Slaughter and Ikenberry). I suspect they expected the Princeton Project Report to be a major statement about the future of US foreign policy. Heck, they probably even had visions of becoming the latest buzz among the Washington cogniscenti, "Have you read the PPR [because everything in DC has to have an acronym]? Isn't it just brilliant?" Slaughter would be secretary of state in the sure-to-be democratic administration of 2008, and Ikenberry would be her director of policy planning. Now that their report has landed with a distinct thud, you wonder if they might be humbled.

GWB has said very few wise things about US foreign policy, but one of the few was his call in the 2000 debates for a more humble foreign policy (as we all know, that went right out the White House window). Both US foreign policy and Slaughter and Ikenberry could use a good dose of humility.

Posted at October 16, 2006 6:05 PM in response to Princeton Project Strikes Back, Part II

The grand strategy of "order building" has the same arrogance as the specific strategy of attempting to build order in foreign societies through military force. Again, no wonder so many liberal internationalists supported the war in Iraq. In all ways, they overestimate their ability and the ability of the United States to impose order on social processes, in particular the nasty, competitive business of international relations.

As an aside, one wonders what the point of all these meetings with all these experts was under the guise of the Princeton Project. Best I can tell, Slaughter and Ikenberry are arguing now precisely what they would have argued prior to spending all this money on fancy dinners and conferences. It's a bit strange to read Slaughter and Ikenberry talking as the "Princeton Project" striking back. Does this report in any way represent the views of the myriad people involved in the Princton Project, many (most?) of whom would disagree with the final report? Slaughter and Ikenberry wrote this report, and it reflects their ideas.

Posted at October 16, 2006 6:03 AM in response to The Princeton Project Strikes Back, Part I

Devon,

First, I don't think this topic can be taken too "seriously."

Second, let's read Ms. Kleinfeld's own words: "While President Bush's neocons serve as shills, claiming that he is fighting on behalf of democracy, his actual policy is realist. Cozying up to dictators in Central Asia who provide military basing rights, ignoring the worldwide spread of rights-destroying ideas pushed by the Wahhibists in Saudi Arabia--these are the policies of a realist." I think Kleinfeld's claim (though, honestly, it's hard to tell) is the following:

-GWB is a realist.
-GWB's foreign policy has failed.
-Therefore, realism has failed.

Unfortunately, the first premise, as I noted in my prior post, is demonstrably false. Sure, there are elements of the policy that are realist, but there are elements of any foreign policy that are realist (even in Jimmy Carter's foreign policy). But let's look at the overall tenor of the foreign policy: the belief that regime change by invasion and occupation was advisable in Iraq, the belief that states would simply rollover in the face of US aggression, the belief that there is something ineluctable about the spread of democracy. These have been central tenets of this administration's foreign policy, and they are anything but realist.

Posted at October 12, 2006 10:08 AM in response to There is no ethical in realism

John Ikenberry essentially advocates another 1940's moment, but his account of the 1940's misses one essential component: the Soviet Union. According to Ikenberry's self-serving portrayal of the 1940's, the United States was simply motivated in the late 1940's by a virtuous desire to create a stable international order. In fact, the American desire for NATO, European integration, and opening of the global economy were all motivated by a desire to create a bulwark against Soviet-inspired communism. Where is today's Soviet Union? "Islamo-fascism" is certainly a threat, but it is a different type of threat than a superpower in the form of the Soviet Union.

Ikenberry's account is also remarkably oblivious to the realities of American power and the threat that power poses to others. The US can say nice things and try to act in nice ways, but one of the key realist points (a la Steve Walt) is that states instinctively fear other states' power in international relations. Even the best efforts of the United States to reconstitute the international system are likely to be greeted with trepidation by others.

In short, off-shore balancing may be "intellectual mush," but is that better or worse than the dangerous naivete of liberal internationalism?

Posted at October 11, 2006 6:26 AM in response to Steve Walt versus the Princeton Project

Frankly, this is such a convoluted, contradictory, and non-sensical post that it's hard to know where to begin. A few points:

-Early on, Ms. Kleinfeld writes, "It also means that we do not go on ideologically inspired crusades, but carefully weigh the facts in any given case." But then what follows? Basically, a call to arms for an ideological crusade in the name of liberal beliefs as if these are self-evidently wonderful values in which the rest of the world surely shares. If one reads the post carefully, I'd suggest there isn't much room between Ms. Kleinfeld's liberalism and neo-conservatism. Her trite story about how the cold war ended is the same trite (and simplistic) story advanced by the neo-cons. No wonder it was liberals and neo-cons who pushed the Iraq War.

-I believe Ms. Kleinfeld is correct to note that "ethical realism" is something of an oxymoron. But then she goes on to label George Bush as a "realist." Huh? Perhaps Ms. Kleinfeld needs to read a bit beyond Kissinger and standard Thucydides throw-away lines to understand the realist tradition in foreign policy. Realists eschew ideological crusades of precisely the type that the United States went on in Iraq. Realists were overwhelmingly opposed to the war in Iraq (see the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy). Realists question whether others will be attracted to American values while Ms. Kleinfeld takes it as unproblematic that others will embrace these same values. Realists believe that the only reliable way to make foreign policy is to base it on a cold, calculating, sober, and prudent calculation of national interests and the threats to those interests. States get in trouble when they have Ms. Kleinfeld's hubris; when they believe that the attractiveness of their ideas can trump the realities of their capabilities and the threats those capabilities pose.

A truly realist foreign policy wouldn't have us in this mess that the United States is in today. It's neo-cons and liberals--liberals precisely of Ms. Kleinfeld's ilk--that have gotten us into this predicament.

Posted at October 10, 2006 12:48 PM in response to There is no ethical in realism