HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

Great post today from Greg Djerejian.

After taking apart several straw men offered up by Michael Gerson, a former Bush speechwriter, he offers an excellent explanation of what he has termed "skeptical realism":

Call us skeptical realists, perhaps. Don't get me wrong. We are not but unsentimental Palmerstonians, to a man. Beyond direct calculations of national interest, we certainly believe there are moral considerations that need to be brought to bear in foreign-policy making councils. For instance, we found Reagan's stance against Soviet totalitarianism wise and effective. So we understand that a moral dimension has its place, and always will, in the prosecution of U.S. foreign policy. We realize too, as security hawks, that the spread of democracy typically has the effect of reducing the specter of war and conflict. Which is to say, we like democracy, and are happy to see it spread. But we are not fanciful adventurers--and we want to ensure requisite resources are brought to bear, and utopic outcomes are not breezily assured, and we suspect the effort will take place in gradualist fashion, via economic liberalization as much as political reform, and certainly not under the barrel of Israeli (Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon) or American (Iraq and, for some of the dimmer neo-cons salivating away, prospectively 'Syran') guns. We realize that democracy is more than a 'ballot-cracy', more than waving purple fingers in what was mostly a national census showcasing the rise of Shi'a revanchism in Iraq. We realize too that Bush's clumsy attempts to spread democracy in the Middle East are failing rather dismally (see, again, the 30-day carte blanche to Israel to engage in a fanciful expedition to 'eradicate' Hezbollah, which helped put another nail in the coffin of America's repute in the region, or the emptily quixotic exercise that were the Palestinian elections, swiftly met with aid cut-offs which predictably have spurred on a grave humanitarian situation, and most of all, an Iraq adventure that has unleashed, in the face of our inability to provide for basic order, national furies that most Americans don't even begin to understand, not to mention great skepticism about America's policy objectives in the region), and that in the face of such debacles, we must not curl up like bovine Pavlovians and ask for more of the same--but demand strategic changes. To do so, we must face reality square-on, learning from our mistakes and re-appraising our strategy, rather than rushing blindly towards the next misadventure.

Not that long ago this was in fact the basis for most US foreign policy, both from Republican and Democratic administrations alike, and it is really only since 9/11 that we've gone off the rails.

Take containment, for example. It was a comprehensive geopolitical strategy pursued by Republicans and Democrats for nearly half a century. By containing the military threat, we used our true strengths - our economic and ideological power - to slowly wear down our opponent. to be sure, it was an imperfect strategy run by imperfect people, but when in human history has perfection ever been achieved?

At some point we will come to our senses. My guess as to when that will be? January 20, 2009.

Be sure to check out Greg's complete post for a much longer take on the issue.