I love Fred Barnes, but here he has it wrong.
"Security, of course, is the goal of the realists. They prefer democracies, but they're not adamant about it. If an autocratic country is friendly to the United States and opposes America's enemies, the realists are quite satisfied. Transforming such a country into a democracy would not be part of their foreign policy agenda. Think of Saudi Arabia in this regard, or Pakistan. Bush rejects this thinking."
Bush hasn't done jack about the Saudis or Pakistan. He's every bit a realist, no matter the speech. And no matter the speech, the American people are only going to be so swayed by idealism--there must be a significant degree of self-interest for the U.S. to invade another country.
Iran and Syria will fit that bill quite nicely, however.
I think to a degree you are right---every great president has combined the two. Washington continued to pay bribes to the Barbary pirates because we didn't have a navy; Lincoln kept the war about reunification until emancipation was unavoidable. But I think Bush is a little different in that he is picking these countries off one at a time: Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, and it is clear to all but the most stupid Saudis that they are in the cross hairs, if only down the line.
That's not exactly true. Bush has installed democracies in neighboring countries (Iraq and Afghanistan). That's going to put a lot of pressure on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to reform.
You don't fight wars in every place simultaneously. Instead you attempt to defeat the enemy in detail, picking your times and spots, and deal with some nations sequentially rather than in parallel. You also tailor your tactics to the specific situation. In some instances you employ force, while in other instances you apply diplomatic or economic or political pressure.
This is not to say that Bush's strategy will work, nor is it to express confidence that Bush will take action against the authoritarian regimes in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. But I don't think it is fair at this point to accuse Bush of ignoring Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. He has a heavy agenda. If nothing has happened by the end of his second term, your criticism will be much more justified.
I disagree.
He has joined the two concepts together. However, when you join something, you combine the elements.
This means he would not be as aggressive as somebody who was solely an idealist.
It does not follow then that he is 100% a realist just because he is not 100% an idealist.
He has not done anything about SA since the gain at the end of the day would not be worth the cost. Ditto with Pakistan, plus they are not quite the despotic regimes of Iran and Iraq.
Bush will spread freedom where it is needed most for the countries in question and our security and where it will have the greatest impact for influencing OTHER nations without our military intervention in those other nations.
This does not make him a realist.
The fact that he supports regime change at all requires that he be called at least part idealist.
Disagree, completely. What defines "doing jack" about the Saudis or Paks in your book? Military action against them? Is not the fact that our insurmountable military power is multiplied by it's judicious application too slow a process?
Everyone knows the Saudis are the prime $$$ movers behind wahhabism, but not many give deeper thought to other realities within the Saudi regime. Their very timidness in the military world is a weakness; this has been clearly betrayed by their devils bargain with the islamist radicals wherein they "paid them off" to export their violence rather than direct it against them in their homeland. Witness how our successes in Iraq & Afghanistan have contributed to those fanatics striking out in Saudi, and witness how (albeit reluctantly...) the Saudis begin to take them on more forcefully.
The Saudis have money, oil, influence... but no backbone. Theirs is a society that - sitting upon all the countless wealth bubbling up beneath their feet - they chose to live a life of princely royalty... not earning their way or building their society, instead choosing the life of elitism and priviledge being catered to by their obvious inferiors. This is a fundamental weakness that it seems to me does not yet merit confronting militarily... especially when we know that we can clean them up when and wherever we so choose.
Pakistan, the other fermenting trough of terrorism, has been flip-flopped into supporting the war on terror. Yes, initially it was a reluctant change, but can anyone doubt that it is paying dividends at an increasing rate? I'm sure that Musharraf knew the game was up when 9-11 occurred - we needed bases to hit the taliban, Pakistan was closest, and as for not joining up with us/continueing to breed terrorists within their borders in defiance of the US??? A quick glance at our overwhelming military power coupled with nearby India surely convinced Musharraf that he'd better grab this bull by the horns, take advantage of this golden chance to rid himself of his radical opponents and move his country forward.
We're doing these things without recourse to military conflict - whereas Iraq definitely had it coming, and - an almost universally overlooked fact - we were already at war with them since among the 18-odd resolutions Saddam defied, the 5th or 6th one basically stated that the pre-existing condition of war which had been put on hold by the cease-fire was then reinstated due to Saddam's non-compliance with the cease-fire requirements.
Military strength lies not just in the successful application of might, but in the judicious and firm advancement of strategy that is backed up by military might. Defeating an enemy by force of arms is fine, but ultimately means that all other means of coercion short of bellic exchange have failed. Turning him into first an impotent enemy, then reluctant accomplice, finally an important asset contributing to your overall strategy is even better. The Saudis are now impotent, and the Paks are reluctant accomplices moving towards the latter category. I'd say that's pretty good for 3 years into this WOT.
CGVet58