Obama is correctly described as a Bush-Obama; his foreign policies are a continuation of the old bad foreign policies that has brought our world to the brink.

Bush-Obama: No Change

How can you possibly consider a President, as Walt says, "ruthlessly realistic" when he thinks he can rid the world of nukes. Or even his whole campaign to become president, the whole "We need change" thing. His whole reach for President was the idealistic, perennial (spelling?) good-guy look that was completely different from Bush. How is any of that realistic at all? His ideas that with diplomacy he can talk Iran or Korea back to the tables, of reseting relation with Russia, etc. All his major plans are idealistic, not realistic. The only realistic part I've seen so far is his speech for the Nobel prize, about using force when he has to. The only "ruthlessly realitic" part of Obama has been that recent speech about possibly using nukes on rogue nations. That's about as ruthless as you can get in this world.

On the other hand, I love how that has been almost entirely ignored. Can you imagine what the media would have done if Bush had said that somewhere? Holy Dirty Bomb, Batman!

Has no American pundit/blogger/talking head ever thought of the obvious fact that if we did succeed at achieving a nuclear free world then the US would be ever MORE militarily dominant than it is today??? And to Kagan's assertion that this denuclearization process represents "idealism of the highest order," I heartily object. If realism is about acting solely based on the national interest, then it can be more of a prism into someone's biases than a coherent ideology. But to most people, idealists like Mr. Kagan included, our basic interests should be clear. Foremost among them (and Dick Cheney agrees with me) is ensuring that terrorists don't acquire nuclear weapons. Now, Mr. Kagan may believe that it's possible to do that in an environment of ever-more proliferation, but I seem to remember him and his cohort rejecting the notion that the Iranian regime could be deterred. So I find it VERY difficult to understand how he plans to deal with a world in which many more nations have the same weapons. Are we to bomb them all? A realist idea Kagan might reject is that attacking these nations would only provoke more rapid proliferation. How he plans to wipe out the Iranian bomb (if it's ever built) is an another question, since the military is clearly unconvinced that a military strike will be sufficient. The goal is idealistic, but the means--mutual arms control agreements negotiated with a guarantee that the US will not foreclose its nuclear weapons until all other nations have done so--have REAL impact and results, even if they aren't technically "realist". Finally, even if the US were to lose all of its nukes and some other nation threatened it with nuclear attack, that nation could still be obliterated with ease. WE HARDLY NEED THE THINGS TO MAINTAIN A DETERRENT--WHY NOT SCRAP THEM AND REAP SUBSTANTIAL THE BENEFITS!?

i meant to add: sometimes process itself is a good chit for international bargaining. the peace process in the middle east certainly enhanced the US's perceived and real influence while it was still "progressing".

I think, like so very much, this idea that he has to be either a realist or an idealist is perhaps attempting to oversimplify things that have a lot more nuance to them.

For instance, let's take the nuclear agreement with Russia. On its face it isn't much- and in fact it may even be a bad deal for the US, given the numbers. The target numbers mean we remove nukes while the Russians are already under their goal. Done in the name of pure idealism, it's a gamble to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world through example.

But it does a lot more than that. Russia didn't raise a fuss when the new nuclear policy came out and it kept missile defense. They've also become more agreeable to the idea of facing off against Iran. Compared to the uproar when George W. Bush pushed forward with missile defense, that's a significant change.

At the same time that nuclear policy document has done more than just advanced an idealistic goal- it's also worked very nicely as realpolitik. If, as some postulate, the reason Iran and North Korea have pursued nukes is because they're afraid of what we might do, the carrot-and-stick setup makes avoiding nukes useful to them. Further, it causes huge issues for Iran, which we can see with their frenzied declaration that it's a threat. It is- but not the way they're stating. Instead, they will have even more trouble justifying their program and behavior, especially internally where they've spent so much time frightening the populace about what the US might do.

This is something that keeps coming up again and again, both in foreign policy and domestic- Obama is a centrist, not only in liberal versus conservative but also in realist versus idealist. Which shouldn't really be a surprise when you think about what a community organizer does- use big ideals to rally people, and then be prepared to negotiate and manage some give & take in order to achieve whatever you can.

Fairly straightforward, if not straight forward into a pigeon hole.

George HW Bush is twice the person Obama is, and he towers over the entire current Republican leadership. To compare the two is unfair to GHW Bush. Obama might try to imitate Bush Sr's policies, but he will never have the same understanding of the world that Bush did. I wish we had more great foreign policy presidents, most have been disappointing.

President Obama brings a unique mix of idealism and pragmatism to American foreign policy. Inheriting a really difficult situation from the previous administration, President Obama has deftly reshaped how the rest of the world perceives America. Bottom line, America's interests are now more protected as is our security. Isn't that the goal of America's foreign policy? To keep America more secure. I'm good with President Obama taking that call at 3:00 AM in the morning. I'm sleeping well.

Realism is not a theory of foreign policy -- it's a structural theory of international relations that predicts how certain states will act based on existing power structures. Realism assumes that nations act either to maximize their power or their security, depending on the version of realism to which you ascribe -- classic realism or neorealism. Another aspect to realism is that the only relations that matter are those between the great powers. Smaller states such as Iran and non-state actors such as terrorists do not figure in realism. Moreover, Dick Cheney believes in using military intervention to actively restructure the system. A realist would argue that such interventions would upset the system's status quo and threaten other states, who would then seek a balance of power by aligning with each other against the aggressor state. In fact, in terms of international relations theory, Cheney is a liberal -- he ascribes to the Wilsonian perception that democratic states can invade non-democratic states in order to spread democratic ideals. Finally, while realism is tepid in including nuclear deterrence as a major pillar of the theory, the balance of power tenet does argue that states will find means to balance the threat of a more powerful state by increasing their own military power. Thus, realism would foresee a nuclear arms race by states who feel their security is threatened -- as some argue Iran does.

Russia didn't raise a fuss when the new nuclear policy came out and it kept missile defense. They've also become more agreeable to the idea of facing off against Iran. Compared to the uproar when George W. Bush pushed forward with missile defense, that's a significant change.At the same time that nuclear policy document has done more than sazkyjust advanced an idealistic goal- it's also worked very nicely as realpolitik. If, as some postulate, the reason Iran and North Korea have pursued nukes is because they're afraid of what we might do, the carrot-and-stick setup makes avoiding nukes useful to them. Further, it causes huge issues for Iran, which we can see with their frenzied declaration that it's a threat. It is- but not the way they're stating.