Think Again: Realism

I quote from this remarkable article: "This is not the place to reargue the Iraq war. So let's stipulate that the issue here [today] is not whether to use military force to promote changes in the nature of states; it's about whether -- and how -- to promote such changes peacefully"

One understands why Wolfowita wouldn't want people looking too closely at why Iraq was invaded in 2003 -- unnecessarily, as it seems to most observers -- and I suppose he now goes toward the grave without expressing any need ever to explain to the world why he and his crew (cabal might be better) seem to have expended absolutely no effort throughout 2002 toward what he now describes as "promot[ing] such changes peacefully". Richard Clarke has suggested a course of conduct obvious to him in the White House from 2001 that's simply encapsulated in the motto "Shoot first, ask questions afterwards", and Wolfowitz's coyness in this article suggests that Clarke got it right -- except that Wolfowitz would rather that questions be few.

Was such peaceful change possible in 2002? Of course, we'll never know. We do know that the arts of peace played no part in Bush-Rumsfeld-Wolfotwitz et al's views of how to improve things in Iraq and we also know that under the military and scientific supervision supplied by the United Nations, the IAEA and the USAF during the Clinton years, there was no reason to fear that Iraq presented a military threat to anybody.

Realism does not seems a thing the 2009 Wolfowitz senms qualified to run on about. He had his chance; he missed it; he missed it twice. Hundreds of thousands died resultingly. One evident result is thar the Afghanistan melee continues not to US advantage. This in large part is because the Wolfowitze crew decided to rob Coalition forces in that nation of the military units desired by the "realists" to invade Iraq. These days, even commanding US generals don't seem to be arguing that any international terrorists are succumbing to the US military presence and military deaths in Afghanistan. A triumph of Wolfowitz-style "realism"? So it seems.

Steve Sniegoski has the goods on Wolfowitz and the other JINSA/PNAC/AEI Neocons in his 'The Transparent Cabal' book:

Stephen Sniegoski’s lecture on his book, “The Transparent Cabal”:... Read More

http://america-hijacked.com/2009/08/16/stephen-sniegoskis-lecture-on-his-book-the-transparent-cabal/

Wrong people; but he did choose them: policies and people. But you, Mr Wolf..., I think were/are just as off the wall in your understanding of "reality" and the best ways to address realities: For Wolf… 2+2=3p; for Obama 2+2=5q: wrong answers are still wrong answers: neither of you, your advisors or your think tanks has a clue’ except as I copyrighted in 1991 about this war (yes that obvious in 1991) “nice long lasting war and sell lots of weapons”: exactly as predicted! This war was as easy to avoid then as it is to win now; but that would mean the “terrorist would stop trying to kill us and the war and weapons sales would end; so Wolf.. and Obama are two peas in a pod; pot calling the kettle black; Obama =Wolf…

But if/when you miss deduce any where along the way: nothing else holds true!

So the problem with Mr. Wolf… and Mr Obama is that their foundational assumptions are flawed. Each clings to ideology instead of reality. So neither understands his enemy or his enemy’s motivation! Therefore both conclude with “nice long lasting war and sell lots of weapons”. I have absolute clarity on the enemies’ of: freedom of speech, women’s emancipation, freedom of/from religion who are war with us, so I know how to beat him at his own game; and it is easy; “win win”, while avoiding casualties from the current “bazaar” battle tactics we use now which only work to perpetuate the conflict.

Kinino, James Morris and Jay Getty have a blog tailor made for them:
http://iraqwarwrong.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-this-blog.html

Wolfie Baby

You are the man.

You're common sense approach to foreign policy should be adopted by the current administration.

Are you listening Obama.

Also, don't worry about Iraq. You and you're fellow neo-cons did the right thing.

History will prove it.

Ha Ha. In the absence of wit, stopper conspirazoid Jay Getty relies on Godwin flails his arms in the air and foams at the mouth.

I'm so sorry Jay Getty for your bizarre and egregiously misinformed "powers of observation", but LBNAZ stands for Left, but not antizionist. The Nazis marched my grandparents and my aunt to a forest outside the present city of Diatlovo, Belarus and with their collaborators made my grandparents and 7 year old aunt strip off their clothes, dig a trench and then shot them and the other Jews they captured. My father enlisted in the Russian Army and fought the Nazis and my other aunt and uncle fought the Nazis and their collaborators as partisans until after the war they were all sequestered in the DP camp that formerly was the Nazi concentration camp of Bergen Belsen. What experience do you have of Nazism Getty? Was your family targeted by the Nazis and annihilated whenever possible because they were deemed "untermenschen" and der" Ewige Jude"? Thought not.

And while you're digging yourself out of your conspirazoid and self-made hole for embarrassing idiocy can Getty post a link showing how he has come to the off the wall conclusion that I'm a weapons manufacturer? Thought not.

Getty calls me a Nazi, a "weapons manufacturers' marketing representative... [who is] serving my masters" and a "weapons manufacturer" because I posted a link, just for foaming at the mouth hotheads like him, to a hillarious blog called: "iraq war wrong".

Of course it's not all Getty's fault: clearly the illuminati, the Bilderbergs, the Gnomes of Zurich, the trilateral commission, the neocons and the Zionists surgically excised the sense of humour from his brain, when he was but a wee toddler.

"...the purpose of the war was to remove a threat to national and international security..." and not impose democracy. Having just reargued the Iraq war (in revisionist fashion) he brazenly says in the very next paragraph, "This is not the place to reargue the Iraq war."

This level of arrogance explains much about his actions and hopefully he won't be given another forum to play the role of the black knight from Monty Python's "In Search of the Holy Grail"—having been hacked down to nothing but his head the black knight demands the duel continue protesting that he has only suffered a scratch.

It is really not fair to use this analogy as the scene from the movie is a hilarious joke while Wolfowitz and this effort at rehabilitation is a very bad and tasteless joke.

The right (but incorrect) wing really must get their story straight!

"During my time in the U.S. government, I've participated in many rounds of this debate. One of them was over whether to preserve the State Department's Bureau of Human Rights. Realists saw it as an annoying creation of Jimmy Carter's administration; others thought it was more realistic to maintain pressure on an issue of major importance in the competition with the Soviet Union. " "Realism" Paul Wolfowitz 8-24-09

"The establishment left has had a more difficult time explaining how Reagan succeeded in his two stated goals-turning the economy around from Carter's stagflation -- both high unemployment and inflation-and destroying the Soviet Union -- with such wrongheaded policies." —Gorby didn't fall, he was pushed Mon, 04/13/2009 - 2:54pm —Grover Norquist

Finally the right (and correct in this rare instances) gives credit where credit is due. President Jimmy Carter was the first to break with the foreign policy paradigm of detente. President Carter's foresight, courage of conviction and wisdom is responsible for the fall of the iron curtain and the end of the Soviet Union.

We on the left have always known this and are glad that those on the right (but incorrect) are finally willing to acknowledge this.

The right (but incorrect) wing really must get their story straight!

"During my time in the U.S. government, I've participated in many rounds of this debate. One of them was over whether to preserve the State Department's Bureau of Human Rights. Realists saw it as an annoying creation of Jimmy Carter's administration; others thought it was more realistic to maintain pressure on an issue of major importance in the competition with the Soviet Union. " "Realism" Paul Wolfowitz 8-24-09

"The establishment left has had a more difficult time explaining how Reagan succeeded in his two stated goals-turning the economy around from Carter's stagflation -- both high unemployment and inflation-and destroying the Soviet Union -- with such wrongheaded policies." —Gorby didn't fall, he was pushed Mon, 04/13/2009 - 2:54pm —Grover Norquist

Finally the right (and correct in this rare instances) gives credit where credit is due. President Jimmy Carter was the first to break with the foreign policy paradigm of detente. President Carter's foresight, courage of conviction and wisdom is responsible for the fall of the iron curtain and the end of the Soviet Union.

We on the left have always known this and are glad that those on the right (but incorrect) are finally willing to acknowledge this.

Rather more than a week since publication of this article on realism, and reader responses clearly show thatWolfowitz is the Rodney Dangerfield of power politics, diplomacy and warfare/ He certainly gets little respect from Foreign Policy readers. His AEI honors seem more charitable that productive.

Perhaps the appropriate postscript to his brief an tragic position in redefining the planet through misapplied warfare comes from David Kilcullen, the military strategist who greatly helped US forces turn the corner in Iraq post-Wolfowitz.

Kilcullent's book, The Accidental Guerrilla, makes clear his view that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were both foolishly and wrongly directed during the Wolfowitz months. He now says openly that he expects Afghanistan to be a place where Americans and the shrinking number of Coalition partners will in future be sending soldiers -- who as yet have not been born.

Kilcullen evidently knows about war. Wolfowitz clearly never did. Clinging to definitions of realism doesn't mask that.

It implies that the other side is "idealistic", or unrealistic. This has always sort of offended me.

I wonder if someone has made a graph of Foreign policy theories, like people make graphs for domestic policy theories. I would classify myself as an idealist, and I believe America has to move away from selfish, country centered foreign policy. That being said, I would enforce human rights and environmental standards, not go to war with Iraq.

Eric C

PS. Really inane debate above. I almost didn't post. In general, don't attack other posters for working for X group, and don't call people nazis.

Despite Wolfowitz opening by saying he didn't want to bring up a debate about his policy on Iraq, he certainly pushes numerous subthemes that would suggest that he was right all along on Iraq. Of course, these arguments, like his Iraq policy, are wrong and seriously slanted. First, he wants to say that thanks to US policy on Korea, South Korea now has a flourishing democracy and a vibrant, capitalist economy. Well that's just super, and came at a not too shabby 50 years post-invasion. That really gives Iraq something to look forward to in 2055. Not only did our uneven policy on Korea nearly cause World War III with China, but we indefinately split the country, with little talk of reunification, and have a mad man in charge of their neighbor. You're welcome, South Korea. Then, Wolfowitz gives credit to Bush for the reunification of Germany? Seriously? That's a slap to the face of every German, French, and other European leaders that worked so hard to have unification. Oh and so glad that, as Bush has a history of doing, he stopped supporting a dictator and invaded the country of the guy he supported for so long. Bush dealt almost personally with Noriega as a CIA informant meanwhile he was a known drug trafficker through his own country. Bush, and many in his son's administration, had a long history with Saddam too, until of course they had to back down, and eventually invade. And please, is Wolfowitz honestly going to give the Libyan deals as a win for Bush? If you are going to give that credit anywhere, it belongs to Clinton. That's right, Clinton. Who pushed for unpopular sanctions against the country, and even got the Europeans onboard. These sanctions were crippling the economy, and Qaddafi eventually had to give up the programs as he could no longer afford to run the country and the programs. They were have long diplomatic talks long before the invasion of Iraq, and were already starting negotiations to lift sanctions long before the election of Bush even, who I might add almost dropped the ball with negotiations. The timing of the announcement was largely political and Wolfowitz certainly sees no shame in using it as an added bonus of the invasion of Iraq. Just pititful.

Very nice article! Anyway, the 2009 Hurricane Season is not over yet, and we DON'T mean the Carolina hockey team or the rugby team from New Zealand. (The NHL Season starts in October.) No, there are still tropical storms forming, and one of the few active systems is Hurricane Erika, or Tropical Storm Erika. Hurricane Erika is currently sulking about the southern Caribbean, close to the Leeward Islands, part of the Lesser Antilles chain. It's just off the coast of Venezuela, and some of the islands in its path include Aruba and Margarita Island, an interesting island on which it's curiously hard to find salt. Hopefully, Hurricane Erika will die off before making landfall or head farther out to sea – as it takes more than payday loans to clean up hurricane damage.

Well, my first guess would be, that missioning ones of culture by mixing realist polcy aims such as security and fostering stable relations, is understood as hybris and interpreted as bad conduct.

If we did not have the unilaterism as today, such reforming interests would be regarded as utterly inacceptable and provoking. I would guess that realists, somewhat conservative by taking history into the account of their considerations, would then simply claim that jsut because we face unilateralism, we may not believe that this state of the world is forever and thus, ultimaltey, in the face of history, we can play fair and bythe rules or we may not.

In the end, I remember the US to be a rather risk-averse player in the global battle field, interested in isolation doctrines and being let alone. Maybe realists simply understand the very state of unilaterialism rather as a threat and an unavoidable burdon that world history has imposed on the United States, and maybe that is why nobody wants to play the global dominator and world revolutionary, enforcing state changes.

So again, yes, in one word, my answer to "what is so bad about changing states" would be: hybris.

But apart from that, I really don't get the picture of people still being so madly in love with democracy-

1) The level of education does most of the time not allow for regarding citizens as such. Which basically ruins the idea of the democracy as a form of government where "muendige" citizens vote to form the representative will of the nation.

2) ... blabla.... the usual stuff... globalization harming political space of action ... intermarriage of politics and economic sctor..bla..

Democracy needs like no other "word" a renaissance and significant contributions in the theory to make it at all applicable to the instiutitonal architectures available to us today.

Arguing in favor of such an empty-minded concept that does hardly refer to anything to me either hints at a totally blurred mind,or at someone who likes to hide his interests.