A few weeks later, at the National Defense University, the President offered its most succinct formulation: “The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom.”
That's realism. The writer is brilliant except for one thing: no need to fall into the word-trap. Calling oneself a 'neocon' is falling into a trap. Who wants to call himself a 'neocon'? Who would want to join the 'Neocon Party'?
People can look back to WWII. Germany did little more than attack our ships and challenge us to attack them. We sent most of our troops after Germany. Why? We believed that we could handle Japan on the cheap.
Afghanistan and Iran were identical. Iran was attacking our planes, just as Germany was attacking our ships. Saddam celebrated 9-11, a crude way of declaring war. Iran violated the terms of peace [both previous wars were only truces that temporarilly postponed future wars], just as Germany did. Iran was a strategic ally of our main attackers, just as Germany was for Japan.
It was realistic to take out both. FDR was a neocon? That term 'neocon' is being floated around to vilify us. I do not see the need to embrace it. The term 'realist' applies better. And the term, 'skeptic' should apply to what were called 'realists' in the piece.
labels, labels
Realpolitik gives bad odor to the word realist as well.
If I must choose, I like his original Democratic Realism.
And dressing into the typo police uniform: that's Iraq, not Iran.