BTW Greg, the link to Philip Stephens' article you posted leads to a teaser posted on the FT subscription wall: this link (thanks Steve Clemons):

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=167263

gives the whole text.

However, are we loyal BD readers to take it that, by your seeming endorsement of Steve Clemons' "explanation" (and contra Stephens' thesis) that you agree with the former? I.e., that the facile division of American foreign-policy analysis into "idealist" vs. "realist" camps is, well, just a bit too facile? Stephens is right, though (IMO) when he points out that the US is probably/will probably be prone to an overreaction (a la post-Vietnam) to the debacle of Iraq: but, like Clemons, I think his analysis of the choices is just a little too pat. There HAS to be some sort of middle way between "starry-eyed democracy promotion" and "hard-nosed realpolitik"; and viewing the array of possible alternative FP policies in that manner is little better, AFAICT, than the simpleton "you're either with us or against us" crapola which has been the hallmark of the Bush Administration's approach to most policy decisions all along.

Posted by: Jay C at November 25, 2006 02:38 PM | Permalink to this comment

This whole "realist" vs "idealist" narrative is starting to get irritating. In normal times the idea that you might consider what the actual results in the real world of some action, as opposed to what you hoped they would be, seems kinda obvious. An attempt to set up the "idealists" as far-thinking advocates of democracy seems like just another Straussian shuck to move attention away from the fact that the neo-cons were idiots, not idealists.

This "democracy in Iraq" thing wasn't widely held. Sure, Kanan Makiya believed in it. But the actions of the administration makes it clear that it was certainly not policy. They were dragged, kicking and screaming, by Al Sistani into holding an actual election.

Moreover, a narrative frame that puts Russ Feingold into the same camp as Henry Kissinger is a pretty unhelpful frame. The very small number of people who believe that foreign policy should be conducted based on fantasy don't really belong anywhere in any public policy debate. It's unfortunate that the country has been run by such people for the last six years. But there it is.

Posted by: Jay Ackroyd at November 25, 2006 04:56 PM | Permalink to this comment

It's unfair to judge any foreign policy framework solely by the Bush Admin's actions, since the Bush Admin is a rogue regime; it would be like judging civil engineering solely by the Nazis' use of efficiency studies.

I also don't buy the binary thinking, that foreign policy "has to be" one or the other, either realistic or idealistic. We should at least aim for idealistic, because furthering human rights and liberties is what this country is supposed to be about, while keeping in mind the realistic limitations of what we can accomplish and what we can spend to achieve it.

What's so hard about that?

Posted by: CaseyL at November 25, 2006 06:02 PM | Permalink to this comment

Hey, CaseyL! That's what I meant to say. But what is going on here is that the "idealists" are trying to stay in the game, despite the utter bankruptcy of, AFAICT, every single one of their positions.

Posted by: Jay Ackroyd at November 26, 2006 12:29 AM | Permalink to this comment