Obama Strives To Reconcile Idealism With Realism
A central tension in Obama’s evolving foreign policy approach has been whether to tack more towards realism, even as his need to justify his escalation in Afghanistan has pulled him at times towards a more moralizing approach.
In a particularly interesting moment during today’s speech, he seemed to strive for a way of reconciling the two:
And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -– a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.
I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests –- nor the world’s –- are served by the denial of human aspirations.
There’s enough here to rankle left and right alike. The left may object to the hint that in certain cases it’s acceptable to impose American values by force, for the good of other nations. The right may point out that carries accents of the Bushian moralizing about American values that so often infuriated liberals and America’s allies abroad. (Though Bush eschewed the international system and diplomacy in a way directly at odds with Obama’s overall approach.)
Either way, Obama seems to be trying to recast idealism in foreign policy as of a piece with realism, in the sense that a realistic and self-interested view of the world should hold that American ideals are more likely to foster peace and stability. Realistic idealism? Idealistic realism?
*********************************************
Update: Ben Smith has a smart coinage for Obama’s doctrine: “Realism with a heart.”
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Ahem…
He gave you the formula, Greg, and if guys can’t get this, women I think do – it’s called “enlightened self interest.”
Most women live on that philosophy, whether they know it consciously or not.
The main problem I have with President Obama’s justification for his Afghanistan War, is that it is the wrong approach to countering terrorism.
It is trying to swat flies and gnats with Howitzer Cannons.
America is too much intoxicated with the word; “WAR”. It is being tossed around as the panacea for all the problems of society and the world in general.
War On Terror. War On Poverty. War On Drugs.
I think that I am going to form an Army Of Pacifists To Wage A War On War!
The problem with the justification that President Obama made for what has now become his War, in Afghanistan, is that It Is A Stupid War, and if he really has bought into it being the best way to combat terrorism, then he better invade Somalia, Pakistan, England, Spain, Denmark, Germany, and Chicago, all places where terrorists have established havens.
Only one with his head in the sand would deny that ignoring all evils because they are not your business would not result in a situation when one day it will come to your doors (when Hitler started invading countries he was ignored, when Afganistan was sliding into terrorism they were ignored until they showed up in NY, Spain, Bali, etc.). Also, shunning the moral (and economic) power of conscensus and process in confronting atrocities and wrong is almost as futile in the long term. I can not see the extremes from the right and left providing a convincing defense of their views compared with what he espoused today.
Liam – I agree with you about the nature of terrorism and if I thought we could go back to 9-12-01 and do it differently from the start I would be elated.
But my true belief is that it’s too late – Bush created a massive cluster-f*u*c*k and I don’t see another way out right now. I’m not a member of the joint chiefs. I don’t get intel delivered to me. I don’t know what all is going on in Afghanistan that Obama knows.
All I can do is trust his judgment and his ideals and when he keeps telling us those haven’t changed, then I have some confidence. What else can I do?
Liam….you know I am in complete agreement with your assessment of the Afghanistan strategy. But I’m not so certain Obama is blundering. He may be giving the Pentagon just enough rope so to speak…and they will certainly hang themselves as the Pentagon ALWAYS does…and I think you are correct if you suspect at withdrawal time they’ll ask for delays and perhaps even more troops.
But Obama has set the stage to be able to slam the door on them at that point. I believe Obama is a pragmatist and not an idealogue. And so I’m willing to give him the ability to provide the Pentagon with the rope…but if in two years it’s more of the same old ****…I’m with you. However I really don’t expect it will be…perhaps I’m misguided…and no I don’t consider him a Messiah…but Obama is the smartest, most articulate, coolest President I have seen in my lifetime. In fairness to JFK he really didn’t get a chance thanks to Oswald.
BTW it may be more than the Pentagon that is getting rope with his surge…it may also include cabinet hawks…can you say Hillary?
Please see the full text of his speech Liam. Your assumptions of his world view are not true.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34360743/ns/politics-white_house/
He made the case (which you might argue with correctly in the context after full information) of the temporary nature of war and the undesirability of it, and the fact that it is a last and upalatable resort.
rukidding – “But Obama has set the stage to be able to slam the door on them at that point.”
I think you’re absolutely right about this.
“of the temporary nature of war and the undesirability of it, and the fact that it is a last and upalatable resort.”
enlightened self-interest.
Can we all agree that Obama has rejected and repudiated the Bush Doctrine?
Obama has never been a hawk – not in the legislature or in past comments in 2003 or in voting (this is someone who some consider a dove and systematically undermined the death penalty in Il until it was scrapped in favor of life in agony). He visited returning troop caskets and took several months to assess his strategy (given his commanders asked for troops from next year). He also accepted a Peace prize knowing how that could hamstring a war decision.
In the infinite self wisdom of those on the left, are there no possibliities, of PDBs you are not privy to and otehr assessments that could give you pause and say maybe there are factors I do not know it all or understand that would make you give YOUR president the benefit of the doubt or scalation in war against extremists in Afganistan and Pakistan?
A resounding YES Tena. That doctrine would never lead to a better world or a safer America in the long term.
Perhaps a bit OT…but in the past thread I referred to Obama’s speechwriters. I know for example David Frum wrote Bush’s famous line about the “Axis of Evil” can anybody tell me who deserves the credit for Obama’s speechwriting? They certainly blow away anything Peggy Noonan created.
The major difference here between listening to Obama talk about war and listening to Bush talk about it that I know Obama has a very clear set of ideals and a firm philosophy of government that he’s working from.’
Bush had nothing like that in him – he had a set of ideologies that were handed to him. Bush doesn’t believe s*h*i*t except what he’s told to believe.
Obama has thought ahout all of it. He’s not willful, he’s not blinded by ignorance, he’s not operating from a set of ideas that he is determined to impose whether they fit or not.
And I don’t believe he loves war. I do believe Republicans do – at least these Republicans do – I’ve never heard one of them say it’s regrettable, it’s something that should be a last resort, or even that American lives were worth anything.
AT least Obama tells me that he is painfully aware of the consequences of his decisions. Bush would not be questioned about his – he was “The Deciderer.”
Obama wants to be this country’s leader.
Not this country’s dictator.
That’s another major reason, IMO, that Obama keeps reaching out to the other side. He does not want to be seen as divisive. I know he is divisive just because of who he is, but I think he has tried very hard to bridge the gap. And the Republicans won’t have it.
But nobody can ever accuse Obama of being the one who divided us.
Sorry folks. You are trying to put lipstick on an Ice Hockey playing Pig.
The only way out for Obama now, is to completely defeat The Taliban, Stand up a Self Reliant and Honest National Police Force and Army, and have a coherent and honest national government taking charge of it’s nation’s destiny. All that on less than one billion GDP per year.
The President made the decision after careful weighing all the options, so he is the one who has gone all in.
He can not use the excuse that he gave the Generals enough rope to hang their selves. That will not fly, because if that was what he was really doing, then he should have not send another 30,000 troops, along with their families into that hell hole now.
I think you people are making the President come across as looking callous and devious.
I happen to accept that he is sincere, and has bought into the approach he has decided on. I just think that he made the wrong decision, and he should have looked at this as a hundred year effort to hunt down and eradicate the merchants of terror.
When one takes a wrong turn at the start of a journey, why the hell would you advocate continuing in the same direction, just because you had driven a thousand miles in the wrong direction, before you realized your mistake.
Some say that Bush made a mistake in how he went about it, after 9/11, but now are supporting “staying the course”, that Bush mistakenly set.
Some truths are eternal:
The first thing one should do when they discover that they have dug their self into a hole is: STOP DIGGING.
It may be lipstick on a pig, Liam, but that pig was a “gift” from Bush.
He bred that damn pig, and then he let it grow to the point where it keeps trampling down the fences and getting into the fields and causing us no end of trouble.
IF you don’t keep your eye on the pigs, they will eat small children.
“I happen to accept that he is sincere, and has bought into the approach he has decided on. I just think that he made the wrong decision.”
Ok Liam. I never advocated the calculating scenario. I believe based on all the facts and statistics before him, between several difficult sceanrios, he did what he believed best, and he was operating from the position of one more disposed against war. And that makes me HUMBLE enough to give him the benefit of the doubt or simply more complete information in coming to his decision. Could he be wrong? Yes. Could I be wrong with my more limited data? Yes. We could even both be wrong just because of the course history takes. Enough reason to bury that hatchet and move positively in the decision that was made. Besides there is allowance for change in that decision – what more can one ask for than a president open to altering course if assumptions and analysis change.
@Liam…you make some very valid points but I would steal from..can’t remember whether it was Mike in Arl or Ethan..in his line about the HCR debate. Compromise is not just desirable…it’s usually the only thing that actually works because eventually you have to deal with all the stakeholders.
I agree with you that Obama is sincere…but I don’t think he is quite as dogmatic as you. Again I happen to agree with you on the futility of this strategy based on history and the current situation. But can I state unequivocally that we are both correct…no not unequivocally. Will I be upset if somehow this surge does work? Not really. I hope we’re both wrong.
But I don’t believe it will be black and white in two years. I don’t think it’s a great strategy but there may be some plusses to come out of it. There may be some minor gains…for example in Kabul…out in the countryside..or on the border not so much.
In other words I’m not sure that it is black and white right now nor will the result be black and white. I know that doesn’t satisfy our desires but some things are in shades of gray..and while I am in basic agreement with you view of the strategy I’m not dogmatic about it…nor am I 100% certain.
“And that makes me HUMBLE enough to give him the benefit of the doubt or simply more complete information in coming to his decision. Could he be wrong? Yes. Could I be wrong with my more limited data? Yes. We co”
Thanks for representing for me – I agree J. Richter. I just don’t know everything – I don’t know everything he knows, I don’t know everything about any of it, so all I can do is rely on Obama’s judgment.
And I trust his judgment.
“Realistic idealism? Idealistic realism?”
Both have nicer rings to them than: Pragmatic puritanism.
“Principled pragmatism” is what I’d still like to see more of.
But achieving that amidst Republican’s unprincipled obstructionism isn’t a challenge that should be underestimated.
Anyone have a link to a youtube video of the whole speech yet?
I watched a TV report last night, that was taking the political temperature of Afghanistan now.
Huge opulent Mansions have sprouted up in Kabul, and they are all owned by Government ministers.
The locals refer to e them as:”Poppy Palaces” I think you get what they mean by that.
The average Afghan makes less than two dollars per day, and has to pay 20% of that meager income in bribes. Nothing gets done, and you can not even get into a government building to see someone without bribing the guards.
The NY Times War Correspondent, Dexter Filkins( A Very Good One) said, that when he was coming home recently for a break, he even had to pay a bribe to be allowed into the airport to catch his flight.
Homeowners are having their homes taken away from them, without any compensation, any time some one in government decides that they want the place for their selves. We have been their just long enough for the ordinary Afghan to have formed a set opinion, that we are all talk about clean government, but have allowed it to get worse and worse.
So I caught a video news report of the US offensive in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, to drive The Taliban out of two towns, which they have occupied since 2006(Strange how Non Dithering Dick Cheney, let them just take over and hold those two towns), However;
With the thousand US Troops were less than one hundred members of the Afghan Army, that has been trained so far. They were mostly window dressing, and did not engage in any real combat.
The report showed the US Troops coming across a cache of Taliban weapons; mostly bullets, and a few guns.
The US Troops took possession of the cache, and the Afghan Troops wanted to have them. There have been lots of reports of the Afghan Soldiers selling the weapons that we have provided them, to the Taliban, so I think that The US Troops did not trust the Afghan soldiers enough to even let them keep the Taliban bullets.
The Afghan Troops were upset, and walked off the job, right in the middle of the offensive.
After a few hours, they came back, and were taken back, like they had not just went AWOL in the midst of the battle.
This is the cutting edge forces of the Afghan Army, that we are going to Stand Up, so we can leave.
Good luck with that, provided we have a century or two to spare.
““Principled pragmatism” is what I’d still like to see more of.”
Man you’re good. You ought to do this for a living.
From TPM,
The Military’s Plan For The Afghan War Surge, In One Giant Chart
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/12/the_militarys_plan_for_the_afghan_war_surge_in_one.php?ref=fpblg
It is a very detailed chart of how the Military’s pacification and development plan is supposed to be implemented.
Take a look at it.
I believe that they developed this chart with consultant input from Rube Goldberg, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Link to the full speech
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34360743/ns/politics-white_house/
The hard left may sometimes be as much as responsible for failure of the progressive agenda. Someone wise used to say no to “let the perfect be the enemy of the good”.
Obama’s lower approval some of it commanded from dissilutionment from the left will have the result of weakening progressive resolve on many good policy – which will lead to more leftist dissilusionment until ultimate failure. Are we smart, friends, enemies, or plants towards fissure and failure?
Obama:
I reject this choice.
This seems to be Obama’s motto. Perhaps that’s why he voted “present” so often during his legislative career.
“The left may object to the hint that in certain cases it’s acceptable to impose American values by force, for the good of other nations. The right may point out that carries accents of the Bushian moralizing about American values that so often infuriated liberals and America’s allies abroad.”
I didn’t interpret this passage the same way. I think if there was a hint that American values can be imposed by force it was very slight. I think the transitive property would need to be invoked to arrive at the conclusion that force could be utilized to achieve the aims. But, concomitantly, diplomacy is not diminished in anyway as a tool in pursuit of those aims.
Also, the right may hear something Bushian in this language. But, I think a distinction is that Obama emphasizes the universality of these rights. They are billed as not only strongly American, but innately human aspirations.
Bush on freedom/democracy: “Therefore the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before, and it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace.”
Obama on freedom: “So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side.”
Rukidding.
I am not in the least bit dogmatic. If I thought that a war in Afghanistan would be effective, I would be all for it. I just think that we are doomed to fail in that hell hole, and we will still have to pursue and hunt down terrorists, for the rest of this century, regardless of what wars we start, or do not start.
I am all for pulverizing the camps and headquarters or terrorists in Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, or where ever they emerge. I would also pulverize all the offices that The Taliban establish, and make their leadership have to constantly fear for their lives.
In other words, I want to bring fear and terror into the lives of the terrorists’ puppet masters. War does exactly the opposite to that. It actually gives those puppet masters greater stature and security.
Regarding that chart. Susan Rice was being interviewed on Rachel Maddow the other night and Susan said she has never seen that chart in all her deliberations and wasn’t sure who created it.
“I believe that they developed this chart with consultant input from Rube Goldberg, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster.”
that chart is bogus, according to Susan Rice, our UN ambassador. Rachel Maddow had that chart when she interviewed Susan and Susan said she’d never seen it before.
mikefromArlington – LOL!
Scott C.
We understand you are in the awkward position of being a nattering nabob of negativity. Your side has totally screwed the pooch and your beliefs have been total failures. Now out of some juvenile fit of jealousy you have nothing to really add to the debate other than trying to figure what new negative you can attach to Obama or one of his policies.
I would posit that you are the worst kind of traitor. You are so filled with hate, envy, and jealousy that you are literally rooting for Obama’s policies to fail! I feel a true sense of sorrow for you Scott C. because you must live in a pathetic world full of negativity, hate, vitriol, and incredible jealousy.
Here is your challenge Scott C….I could post George Bush crafted a great policy regarding Aids in Africa…now your turn…try to think of ONE POSITIVE thing to say about Obama…unless your world is sorry that you have nothing but negativity to offer us.
I’ll let the others speak for themselves but if that is the case…please take your negativity and stick it where the sun doesnt’ shine…we prefer to be bleeding heart liberals with compassion for our fellow human beings both here and abroad rather than some hate spewing and again I’ll use one of your icon’s sayings…a nattering nabob of negativity!!!!
Not have seen the chart does not make it bogus, it just means that she had not seen it.
I have never seen The Mona Lisa.
It would be good if you rejected the choice of being constantly negative Scott in pushing false talking points.
He never voted present OFTEN or more often than any average in IL.
THE FACTS: Obama acknowledges that over nearly eight years in the Illinois Senate, he voted “present” 129 times. That was out of roughly 4,000 votes he cast, so those “presents” amounted to about one of every 31 votes in his legislative career.
Illinois legislators often vote “present” and for a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes blocs of lawmakers do it as a protest in some dispute over rules and procedures. Obama was often joined in his “present” votes by 10 or 20 other senators.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/24/fact_check_obamas_present_votes/
NOW CAN WE RETURN TO SUBSTANCE?
Not have seen the chart does not make it bogus, it just means that she had not seen it.
I have never seen The Mona Lisa.
Yes. But not when you are the UN Ambassador and part of strategy deliverations that lasted months. I have never seen the Mona Lisa either but then I do not work in the Arts.
I doubt if Susan Rice has seen all the charts that the Pentagon draws up. NBC stands behind their source.
Did Susan Rice say that the chart was a forgery or did she just say that she had never seen it? There is a big difference. Not having seen it, would allow her to avoid discussing it.
LIAM!!! YOU ARE SHOWING “THEM” THE BIG BOARD!!
—————————————————–
General “Buck” Turgidson: I… I don’t know exactly how to put this, sir, but are you aware of what a serious breach of security that would be? I mean, he’ll see everything, he’ll… he’ll see the Big Board!
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22he%27ll+see+the+Big+Board%22
You really have to look at the full scale to get the “big picture”:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/afghanistan-1300.jpg
It’s the flow chart from h$ll.
And I betcha the right wing militarists have a similar flow chart for “victory” that includes:
David Koch -> Rick Santelli -> Dick Armey -> Rupert Murdoch -> Fox propaganda -> Glenn Beck -> Tea Baggers -> Underpants -> ??? -> Victory!!
“Realism with a heart”
Is that anything like Compassionate Conservatism?
Not really…Compassionate Conservatism is an oxymoron.
Compassion Conservatism is real. It is also known as reverse Robin Hoodism.
Compassionate Conservatives steal from the poor to give to the rich.
>>Realistic idealism? Idealistic realism?
What it is is bullshit.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
The anger and hate that is overwhelming the country has come here. One line comments without an attempt at depth or reason.
J.Richter,
I think she is just a spammer, trying to attract people to her own blog site. She always posts her own website address.
>>One line comments without an attempt at depth or reason.
Like yours?
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Video of Obama’s Nobel speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3uU_mCNcKM
Hi buddy, your blog’s design is simple and clean and i like it. Your blog posts are superb. Please keep them coming. Greets!!!