The Neocons vs. The Realists

National Interest ^ | 09.03.2008 | Joshua Muravchik and Stephen M. Walt

[forkinsocket]

A must-read debate about our foreign-policy future. Does realism offer the best solutions to today’s threats? Or will neoconservatism be responsible for our policy triumphs? The choice is clear after eight years of failed Bush policies, says Walt, but Muravchik thinks the House of Kristol may well be vindicated.

The Future is Neocon

Joshua Muravchik

TO COMPARE the records of realism and neoconservatism we must first define our terms. Realism consists of two mutually contradictory propositions. One holds that states are bound to behave according to their innate interests. Thus, Hans Morgenthau argued that politics is “governed by objective laws” whose “operation [is] impervious to our preferences.” The other holds that states may deviate from their interests but ought not do so. Thus, George Kennan argued that “the most serious fault” in U.S. foreign policy was the tendency to take a “legalistic-moralistic approach to international problems.” Without resolving the inconsistency we may stipulate that realism posits that states do or should hew closely to a tight conception of the national interest, revolving around matters of geography, resources and power.

Neoconservatives were originally a circle of writers who proclaimed no “ism.” Their approach to foreign policy consisted of what Max Boot has called “hard Wilsonianism.” As one such neocon, I would stipulate that the essential tenets, in contradistinction to realism, include giving a greater weight to moral considerations, attributing larger importance to the ideological element of politics and above all favoring a more contingent assessment of the national interest. While realists believe that we will be safer by seeking to avoid unnecessary broils, neocons believe that we will find more safety using our power to try to fashion a more benign world order. On these points, neocons are liberal internationalists.

[forkinsocket]

.

[cripplecreek]

Unfortunately neither the “rrealists” or the “Neocons” are willing to confront China over the growing mountain of evidence that they Chinese are funding and arming the people who are killing our soldiers.

[PerConPat]

After reading the two opinions, and before reading the two rebuttals, I drew the conclusion best summed up by Muravchik in his rebuttal:

...Merely to oppose the war, however, is not enough. America must find a response to the challenge that became vivid on 9/11. To date, realists have [essentially] offered none.

I don't know how many times in the past seven years I have whipped this argument down on the backs of anti-Iraq invasion types who, like Walt, have mastered the art of hindsight and can point to every mistake/ miscalculation associated with our current effort in the Middle East.

The enemy, for all of his elusiveness, was drawn out and engaged. Result- no significant attack on the US homeland, to date, since 9/11/01... If any one of any political persuasion can offer a cogent argument that diplomacy, trade sanctions, police work, UN action, etc. could have achieved the same result-- I will certainly consider it.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Very few of us have enough information to know the real reason for there having been no repeats of 9/11 since that fateful date.

It could be the case that members of Al Qaeda were so worked up about Iraq that they all went there to fight.

It could also be the case that the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA, etc. have put enough of their differences on hold to work together to stop potential terrorist threats before they happened.

It may be the case that many technically unconstitutional things are being done on a daily basis to guarantee our safety.

It may also be the case that our safety currently could be guaranteed by solely constitutional means if we had not kicked the wasps nest in Iraq and had instead done what Walt and other realists suggested and focused our efforts on Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban.

[PerConPat]

Very few of us have enough information to know the real reason for there having been no repeats of 9/11...

If foreign policy- and politics in general- were an exact science, we would know the reasons for all successes and failures in this arena. But just as an administration will be blamed for not taking appropriate action to prevent a 9/11, it must be given credit for its successful efforts to prevent another one. Not precise, not tidy...political reality...

As to the questions of constitutionality, I doubt that there will ever be a time when US citizens, en masse, will rise up in righteous anger and scream "Unconstitutional" in matters such as these. There is a process for for those of differing opinions to take their grievances to the ballot box, their elected representatives, and the courts. I see no effort on anyone's part to interfere with this.