Neo-Realism and the End of War
Karl has a post over at protein wisdom I find very interesting and something worth my pondering. Actually,it’s a subject I’ve thought quite a bit about in the past few years; that is, what is the role of the United States in a world where aggressive Islamism exists?
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that even though we are not the only target of Islamists, we are certainly the biggest. It’s also reasonable, if we believe what the Islamists themselves say, that we are targeted because the way we live are wholly incompatible with their beliefs, for several reasons.
Many of us on the right, myself included, have made a lot of fun at the folks whose first response to 9/11 was “Why do they hate us?”. It’s not that I thought the question wasn’t a good one but that it was sorely mis-timed. Those who were asking it weren’t generally interested in the long-term ramifications of the answer but in stalling all of us in a web of self-recrimination that would prevent any meaningful retaliation against a gang of murderers.
I do think it’s a good question to ask, though, because if we ever hope to quell the rising tide of Islamism, we’re going to need to know how to throttle it at its source. The only way to find out what that source is, is to ask that question and be ready to act when the answer makes itself apparent.
Now, that answer is more than apparent and it’s been apparent for years to President Bush. The reason that Islamists hate us is because our freedom, spread abroad, reduces their influence dramatically. That is why the Bush Doctrine has been such an important venture and ought to continue, regardless of who occupies the White House for the next four years. Karl calls the proponents of this doctrine “Neo-Realists” and I think that’s a very appropriate sobriquet. His conclusion is right on the money.
Disengaging from the Middle East would leave in place the dynamic in which Islam is seen as the alternative to corruption and oppression, and in which the US is blamed for not promoting democracy in an even-handed manner. Energy independence could accelerate the rise of politicized Islam, and US withdrawal would increase the risk of conflict between other nations destabilizing the global economy.
Once the alternatives are considered, the Bush Doctrine looks like neo-Realism. Old school US foreign policy Realism is one reason we face the risky situation in the Middle East described in the New York Times. Dealing with that world requires realism in facing up to that fact, and recognizing what it means in a world with a global economy and increasingly global infosphere. Realism requires a recognition that we cannot run away from the problem, even when doing something about it may be very difficult.
I deride the old-school “Realist” foreign policy proponents because it’s never been anchored to reality. It’s always been a myth that if you prop up one strongman over the other, you can keep a country stable. The reason that’s been such a firm part of our foreign policy is because the Realists have pulled a little word game on us. We’ve simply redefined “stable” as “not actively thwarting our aims in the region”. But underneath that faux stability has always been a seething cauldron of hatred caused by our callous repression. Muslims have been watching us very carefully for the past fifty years and we have not acquitted ourselves well at all. They have seen how eagerly we push democracy everywhere around the world but where they live and they don’t care a whit for our rationalizations. They only know that, until George W. Bush, we were their jail keepers. We were the reason their people died at the hands of cruel tyrants and repressive religious leaders.
Islamim has done a very good job of taking that rage and giving a very direct channel to express it, along with a promise of a great eternal reward. That is a message that is very hard to counteract unless we’re actually there, in the area, actively engaged in giving them a better alternative. That is what we’ve done in Iraq and, though it has taken years to break gaping walls in the mistrust caused by decades of “realism” and years of broken promises, it is working. Though the chants of “death to America” from the rulers of those countries and their Islamist cohorts grow louder, the same chants from the people do not.
With time and a steadfast commitment to Neo-Realism, we can break the back of Islamism such that it can never gain the worldwide significance it now holds. We started in Iraq. We have to continue to press, with every resource at our disposal, everywhere the primitives hold sway. We would be foolish to do otherwise.
No related posts.
Category: General
