Surrender as "Realism"

Weekly Standard | Frontpagemagazine ^ | November 27, 2006 | Robert Kagan and William Kristol

[SJackson]

Foreign policy realism is ascendant these days, we are told. This would be encouraging if true, because our foreign policy must indeed be realistic. But what passes for "realism" today has very little to do with reality. Indeed, if you look at some of the "realist" proposals on the table, "realism" has come to be a kind of code word for surrendering American interests and American allies, as well as American principles, in the Middle East.

Thus, the "realists" advise us to seek Syria's help in Iraq even as the Syrian government engages in a concerted campaign of assassinating every Lebanese political leader who opposes the return of Syrian hegemony in Lebanon. Presumably, the "realist" position is that we should give Lebanon back to Syria, or at least turn a blind eye to its murderous efforts to regain control there, as an incentive to Syria to help us in Iraq, where Syria is also engaged in supporting terrorists. "Realism" is letting dictators get away with terror and murder--and, in particular, letting them get away with the murder of our friends.

The "realists" advise seeking Iranian help in Iraq as well. They are coy about suggesting what the United States could give Tehran as an inducement for such assistance, but the implications of their position are clear. After all, the Bush administration has already offered to talk to Iran, provided the Iranians agree to suspend enrichment of uranium. That has also been the position of the Europeans. The Iranians have refused.

So the "realists" are adapting to the reality of Iranian intransigence. They are in effect suggesting that the administration drop its long-standing position and begin negotiating with Iran despite the Iranian regime's refusal to agree to the common U.S.-European demand. What the realists have in mind, then, is that the United States should turn a blind eye to Iran's nuclear weapons program, in exchange for Iran's help in easing our retreat from Iraq. Who cares if this would destroy U.S. credibility, weaken those in Europe who are trying to be strong, undermine the effort to prevent Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons, and lead to a cascade of additional nuclear states in the region? It would at least make possible further "realistic" accommodations to these new and deadly realities.

The "realists" also advise putting pressure on Israel to deal in a more forthcoming way with the Hamas-dominated Palestinian government. Israel should be induced to make concessions despite the ongoing violence and the refusal of Hamas to ratify even Yasser Arafat's acceptance of Israel's right to exist. Thus, in order to conciliate Arab dictators and radicals, Washington should retreat from long-standing principle and hand a dramatic victory to the forces of violence and extremism in Palestine.

So let's add up the "realist" proposals: We must retreat from Iraq, and thus abandon all those Iraqis--Shiite, Sunni, Kurd, and others--who have depended on the United States for safety and the promise of a better future. We must abandon our allies in Lebanon and the very idea of an independent Lebanon in order to win Syria's support for our retreat from Iraq. We must abandon our opposition to Iran's nuclear program in order to convince Iran to help us abandon Iraq. And we must pressure our ally, Israel, to accommodate a violent Hamas in order to gain radical Arab support for our retreat from Iraq.

This is what passes for realism these days. But of course this is not realism. It is capitulation. Were the United States to adopt this approach every time we faced a difficult set of problems, were we to attempt to satisfy our adversaries' every whim in order to win their acquiescence, we would rapidly cease to play any significant role in the world. We would be neither feared nor respected--nor, of course, would we be any better liked. Our retreat would win us no friends and lose us no adversaries.

What our adversaries in the Middle East want from us is very simple: They want us out. Unless we are prepared to withdraw, not just from Iraq but from the entire region, and from elsewhere as well, we had better start figuring out how to pursue effectively--realistically--our interests and goals. This is true American realism. All the rest is a fancy way of justifying surrender.

[lonestar67]

Excellent summary of the absurdity that is realism.

It is nice to see neo conservatism in print.

[txhurl]

I saw two new buzzwords all over the MSM this weekend: 'realism' and 'reconciliation'.

[xkaydet65]

While I think the War in Iraq has been FUBARed, those who propose defeat under the guise of realpolitik cannot be taken seriously. The likes of Baker, Scowcroft, Hamilton, anmd Kissinger would have had us still engaged with a powerful USSR. Luckily Pres. Reagan had his own ideas, and his own brain trust, like Bill Casey, who saw the truth, the USSR was evil, must be defeated, and will be defeated.

Perhaps Bush 43 needs to find a new Bill Casey, not reprise a tired Jim Baker.

[xkaydet65]

While I think the War in Iraq has been FUBARed, those who propose defeat under the guise of realpolitik cannot be taken seriously. The likes of Baker, Scowcroft, Hamilton, anmd Kissinger would have had us still engaged with a powerful USSR. Luckily Pres. Reagan had his own ideas, and his own brain trust, like Bill Casey, who saw the truth, the USSR was evil, must be defeated, and will be defeated.

Perhaps Bush 43 needs to find a new Bill Casey, not reprise a tired Jim Baker.

[sgtbono2002]

I am sure the Dems in the Congress will want to work with either Syria or Iran. It will be like giving them a gift of Iraq

[etradervic]

Defeat is also very "real."

The way that this will be sold to America is to convince Americans that we have already lost or that "Iraq is not winnable" - all cloaked in a dishonorable diplomacy.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]

----------------------------

[43north]

OK, let me get this straight... everyone with half a brain (which excludes ALL lieberals and just about all dhimmiecrats) knows darn well that iran and syria are the evil b@st@rds behind the problems in Iraq. So now the "elder statesmen" in this country are going to advise that the only solution to the "Iraq Problem" is to negotiate with these barbarians?

This is Neville Chamberlain appeasing Hitler all over again. Here we go folks.

[GOP_1900AD]

Woo hoo! Truer words are few and far between

[TomasUSMC]

Well if we are not going to fight back against Iran, we might as well talk to them.....not, instead we should get rid of the spineless leaders of this country who refuse to raise a finger against Iran and replace them with men like Retired General Batiste....someone who is smart enough to say we need to mobilize this country for WAR.

[popdonnelly]

I believe Bush 43 needs to show Baker and his commission the door.

[michigander]

Federalist No. 23

[rbg81]

I call it surrealism. Find a way to spin defeat into victory. If we are defeated, it is because of self-imposed restraint. We know what has to be done, but won't do it because of the Euros, the UN, and the NYT will say nasty things about us.

[theBuckwheat]

The left is always revisiting Vietnam when talking about Iraq. Now they are completing the circle, by helping to bring about the same "solution" to the Iraq war as they did to the one in Vietnam: declare victory and go home.

Only it wasn't victory then and it won't be victory now. Further, the VietCong were just happy to have control of the whole country and to start the task of "re-education" of those in the South. The jihadists are different. Without any infidels to use as springboards into the eternal brothel, they will have to seek contact with infidels elsewhere. That means they will try to follow us around the planet and into our homes.

As usual, the left is living in la-la land.

I will never support any politician who votes to walk away from Iraq, no matter what they may call the walk.

[TomasUSMC]

If we are defeated, it is because of self-imposed restraint.

---

Or as I would say............ KGC warfighting
(Kinder Gentler Compassionate)

[Tolik]

Robert Kagan and William Kristol:

...So let's add up the "realist" proposals: We must retreat from Iraq, and thus abandon all those Iraqis--Shiite, Sunni, Kurd, and others--who have depended on the United States for safety and the promise of a better future. We must abandon our allies in Lebanon and the very idea of an independent Lebanon in order to win Syria's support for our retreat from Iraq. We must abandon our opposition to Iran's nuclear program in order to convince Iran to help us abandon Iraq. And we must pressure our ally, Israel, to accommodate a violent Hamas in order to gain radical Arab support for our retreat from Iraq.

This is what passes for realism these days. But of course this is not realism. It is capitulation. Were the United States to adopt this approach every time we faced a difficult set of problems, were we to attempt to satisfy our adversaries' every whim in order to win their acquiescence, we would rapidly cease to play any significant role in the world. We would be neither feared nor respected--nor, of course, would we be any better liked. Our retreat would win us no friends and lose us no adversaries.

What our adversaries in the Middle East want from us is very simple: They want us out. Unless we are prepared to withdraw, not just from Iraq but from the entire region, and from elsewhere as well, we had better start figuring out how to pursue effectively--realistically--our interests and goals. This is true American realism. All the rest is a fancy way of justifying surrender.

Nailed It!
Moral Clarity BUMP !

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[Alia]

Spot on. Correct.

[Rummyfan]

So let's add up the "realist" proposals: We must retreat from Iraq, and thus abandon all those Iraqis--Shiite, Sunni, Kurd, and others--who have depended on the United States for safety and the promise of a better future. We must abandon our allies in Lebanon and the very idea of an independent Lebanon in order to win Syria's support for our retreat from Iraq. We must abandon our opposition to Iran's nuclear program in order to convince Iran to help us abandon Iraq. And we must pressure our ally, Israel, to accommodate a violent Hamas in order to gain radical Arab support for our retreat from Iraq.

This is what passes for realism these days. But of course this is not realism. It is capitulation. Were the United States to adopt this approach every time we faced a difficult set of problems, were we to attempt to satisfy our adversaries' every whim in order to win their acquiescence, we would rapidly cease to play any significant role in the world. We would be neither feared nor respected--nor, of course, would we be any better liked. Our retreat would win us no friends and lose us no adversaries.

What our adversaries in the Middle East want from us is very simple: They want us out. Unless we are prepared to withdraw, not just from Iraq but from the entire region, and from elsewhere as well, we had better start figuring out how to pursue effectively--realistically--our interests and goals. This is true American realism. All the rest is a fancy way of justifying surrender.

It is truly mad to think we can achieve our aims by 'talking' wit the Syrians, Iraniana, et al. We are at the brink of an historic moment. How we act will determine our fate for the next hundrd years.

[jwalsh07]

Well, I hate to say it but Smiling Bill is right.