Welcome to POSC240-012!
This is where you will be posting 10 blogs throughout the semester; 4 blogs in September, 3 in October, & 3 in November. Your entries should tackle current events, reactions to lectures and readings, & comments & questions about the class.
Make sure you write substantial and thought-provoking entries & write your full name at the end of each post!
Start blogging!
Nick & Sara
Monday, September 24, 2007
Realism and US Foreign Policy
To what extent does the Realist approach drive American foreign policy in the world today? Would it be fair to say that the Bush administration is solely geared by self-interested goals of security? What do you think?
25 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Offensive Realism and Mrs. T's Pierogies
Most of my extended family resides in Pennsylvania and we love pierogies. Until a few years ago when visiting in Pa I would buy my favorite pierogies from Hanka Pierogies in Hellertown. Mrs. T’s however, wanted to secure its power as a strong pierogi manufacturer and bought out Hanka closing their store. In wiping out Hanka, a competitor, Mrs. T’s improved its position. Though I miss Hanka, Mrs. T’s is lucky I also enjoy their pierogies.
While discussing Realism, I couldn't help but think of Stephen Colbert and his reaction to the Bush administration's comments regarding the war in Iraq. Despite his persona, I think it shows a specific lense when regarding offensive realism.
One of the goals to achieve security is to expand and wipe out competitors. You could argue expansion in a number of different visions, but I would like to focus on expanding democracy.
The latest explanation for remaining in Iraq is to spread Democracy, not only in Iraq, but also neighboring countries. We can eradicate threats by changing them into something we want, such as Democratic nations. We maintain our security and power by creating a pseudo allie in that they are also a Democratic state.
Spreading democracy can be viewed as a liberalist view, however, it is still expansion of a US ideal. We create the governments we want in other nations in order to avoid developing leaders who will change the balance of power.
If the Bush administration truly believes that spreading democracy is beneficial to American and international security, then they cannot be said to have a realist approach. Just because a nation is a democracy does not necessarily mean that it will work in favor of American interests. The United States has opposed democratic nations in the past, such as Chile under Salvador Allende. Bush might believe that a democracy in Iraq will bolster American security, yet the elections in Iraq have led to a Shiite majority that uses its power to ethnically cleanse Sunni areas. Is this good for American security in the long run?
Further, an independent, democratic Iraq might at some point elect a leader who is anti-American. They might elect a leader who wants closer ties to Iran, which the current administration views as a threat. This is not an unlikely scenario, given that Iraq is a majority Shiite nation.
The idea that this administration is actually as pro-democracy as it claims is questionable. When the Palestinians elected Hamas over Fatah, the administration, among others, took punitive action against the Palestinians. It seems to me that if you are in favor of democracy, you should not take actions that provide disincentives for democracy. What good is democracy for the Palestinians if making the "wrong" choice leads to economic hardship?
It is difficult to determine the extent to which offensive realism plays a part in US foreign policy. Is the administration's alleged desire to spread democracy to be taken seriously? If it is, does that mean it is not realist, or is it offensive realism in the sense that more democracy supposedly leads to more US control over more territory? Offensive realism, after all, is based on expansion of power. The US is obviously not trying to directly control territory. I think it likely that the administration envisions a future Iraq as some kind of proxy to use against perceived and actual threats in the region (Iran, China, Russia).
Offensive realism seems to be a policy most suited to powerful nations such as the US, which have the capacity to expand their power. Defensive realism would be more likely to be found in weaker nations like Holland or Spain.
In summary, I believe that the administration is a mix of realists and idealists. Bush himself is probably the latter, as was Paul Wolfowitz. Colin Powell was more of a realist, and a defensive one at that. Certainly in its early years, the administration was run by people who were not realists. Going by its rhetoric alone(especially regarding Iraq and Iran), it could be said that this is still the case today.
I agree that if we try to force our hand to make a country have elections that we should let them freely elect whoever they want. Democracy cannot be a one sided one party system. Is forcing a country to do what we want it to do through economic sanctions any different than the threat of military force? Is the US 'offensive realists' for democracy. In other words if we are not spreading democracy offensively then do we believe something else will take its place? Maybe not trying to take over the world ourselves, just to have democracy take over the world. Would this actually make the US any safer... We would probably just upset more people, leading to more terrorism. Forcing our ideas on people seems to be the best recruiting tool the terrorists have. Maybe the best defense would just be a good defense and not a good offense.
Offensive realism most accurately describes the U.S. in the sense that we are out to get what is beneficial for us. Wikipedia’s definition for America’s foreign policy is a goal "To create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of American people and the international community." I take it as the U.S. basically is trying to spread their philosophies in an aggressive form throughout the international community in securing that their will not be a threat from any outside nation. Conquer or be conquered. The United States has been relatively successful in terms of telling other nations what their plan is for the world and to stay within those bounds. Security is very important and the United States uses the offensive realism approach by being the bully in the situation and telling the other nation to back down or we will attack and destroy you. I think it is fair to say that the Bush administration is solely interested in maintaining its nation’s security. The reason I say this is because Bush’s campaign from the start was to re-establish safety in the U.S. after the terrorist attacks. Although I believe we should work on some of our economic issues, I think it is right for the Bush administration to work on maintaining security in a world with nuclear weapons.
This article is a perfect example of the U.S. selfishly trying to impose a certain order over the Iraqi government, regardless of what they feel is best for their own country.
"The prime minister also said he discussed the role of U.S. troops and private security contractors in the country, stressing that Iraq is a sovereign nation and it should have control over its own security.
Security 'is something related to Iraq's sovereignty and its independence and it should not be violated,' he said."
I think that the U.S. government is using unneccessary violence and threat to try to ensure that Iraq become a democracy, and they are trying not to give them any control over what happens within their country. If Iraq were a demcracy like our country, it would cause much less conflict for us which is why our government is pushing it so hard, I just think that they need to be more careful and not as harsh.
American foreign policy is not based completely on Realism, but I think it plays a big part, especially concerning distribution of power. Ever since America started to hold power over other countries, we have been worried about keeping it. Our leaders have definitely believed that distribution of power in the world is the most important cause of outcomes and global events, like in the 1950s with Communism. Today, we still see political differences as a threat, and are using threat and force in places like Iraq to take down dictatorships. We're not doing this for the good of the world, but to keep America's standing as the most powerful nation, or at least one of them. Our foreign policy is driven almost completely by our need and want for economic prowess and military strength.
Following that line of thought, it does seem that the Bush administration is geared by self-interested goals of security. I think if they were following bandwagoning logic, they could figure that dictatorships and other governments would see how well democracy works and follow that. (It's interesting to consider that America tends to apply bandwagoning logic in only a negative sense.) But I think the administration feels threatened by other countries' different methods, and is thus driven by a need to ensure our security.
I think that the U.S. does follow realism very much in its approach to foreign policy. We believe that other countries having difficulties means that we should interfere in their affairs. In this way, I think that the U.S. is a little too egocentric in its actions, but as a world power, it's not met by much resistance (overall). We also fit the description because more of our tax money goes to our military than anything else, in our attempt to maximize our power and feeling of security.
However, to say that the Bush administration is solely using personal interest in security might be a bit harsh. It does seem like a major driving force behind our actions, but I think that in any actions, there are lesser motivations as well. That being said, I also think we are sometimes way too focused on our own security instead of other important things happening in the world and in our own country.
If our realist status is based on our defense budget, then we are defiantly realists. Although to put things in perspective both ways. We spend about 20% more on defense than we do on social security, and our military budget is about 3.7% of our GDP. These things make the spending look smaller. On the flip side we spend more than anyone else in the world in terms of dollars, ( more than the next fourteen largest spenders combined). So interpret this yourself, but if its about how much we spend on defense, then we must be realists. By the way, the stats came from Wikipedia.
In response to: Would it be fair to say that the Bush administration is solely geared by self-interested goals of security?
Yes, but that goes for any president's administration, in my opinion.
To be honest I was surprised when I learned the definition of realism in class. It seemed like one of those things that didn't need to be made into a theory or thesis. Of course every state is "motivated by the desire for military and economic power or security." It would be impossible to find a country that this term didn't apply to. I don't see any sort of arguement against it.
America went into Iraq partly because Saddam was a ruthless dictator who brutalized his own people, but also because we saw an opportunity to remove one of our biggest opponents and install a democracy.
Maybe I do not understand the word properly. Can someone provide a country or US president that they feel hasn't been motivated by realism?
I agree with the people who say that U.S. foreign policy is realist. There a debate about neo-con foreign policy vs. realism, but I think that the ideals of neo-con foreign policy are not completely independent of realism, that they can only compliment it. The War in Iraq was fought because it concerned with American security; Saddam was a threat, and he supported terrorism. The Ideal of spreading democracy to the Middle East while great, was not the main reason for the war, but an additional benefit. President Bush is an offensive realist. If you listen to many of his speeches you will hear him say that under his administration the U.S. is on the offensive in the war on terror and that it is necessary to stay on the offense to keep America safe.
I think concerning Iraq our foreign policy is absolutely realist. The entire notion of preemptive war or removing a perceived threat before it arises is a realist concept and this is what the Bush administration did to justify regime change in Iraq.
I believe the current justification for remaining in Iraq of spreading democracy or making it safe for democracy was simply an attempt to give the American people a goal to aspire for to keep support for the war up. But while it doesn't appear to be a realist idea a secondary goal of building a successful democratic Iraq is that it would be much less likely to be a threat to us as compared to an unstable Iraq serving as a training ground for Al Qaeda. So while on its face spreading democracy is not a realist idea its impact certainly carries with it realist goals of ensuring security.
We invaded Iraq to make the Iraqi people more like us, so that we will be more comfortable. It doesn't get much more realist than that, especially when you look at one of the core beliefs of realism being for the State to seek to maximize their power or security. One of the biggest reasons, I believe, for the difficulty in bringing democracy into the middle east, is our methodology. We have, so far, used primarily money and war to bring change, while failing to realize that it takes a certain amount of cultural insight to bring democracy. Like idiots, we have offended the Muslim people every way we've turned. I think that realist foreign policy works well to justify part of why we are still in Iraq, yet it appears that we have been so ignorant and have ignored the cultural integrity of Islam. The Bush administration is ridden with false bravura and they need to change the lense on the scope of the situation. The realist ideology makes sense here, but in order to bring such drastic change to a nation like Islam, we need to go deeper than money and war.
This article explains how during the start of the was in Iraq, the United States was focusing primarily on Al-Qaea and its affiliates, but now, America has taken a new approach on its war. Vice President for Policy, Llan Berman, stated that the Bush administration needs a “wider war on terror – one that targets not only Al-Qaeda but the world’s leading state sponsor on terrorism, the Islamic Republic of Iran as well.” If isn’t an example of offensive realism, I don’t know what is. America has taken contiualy taken more steps towards hegemony. At the rate this is going, America will be hated by everyone, and as Geoff Andersen stated, “We would probably just upset more people, leading to more terrorism.” I think America should focus more on internal aspect of balancing power.
"This principle lies at the heart of progressive realism. A correlation of fortunes — being in the same boat with other nations in matters of economics, environment, security — is what makes international governance serve national interest. It is also what makes enlightened self-interest de facto humanitarian. Progressive realists see that America can best flourish if others flourish — if African states cohere, if the world’s Muslims feel they benefit from the world order, if personal and environmental health are nurtured, if economic inequities abroad are muted so that young democracies can be stable and strong. More and more, doing well means doing good."
I thought this article was really interesting, especially this paragraph. It really made me think about globalization and outsourcing. Most Americans hate the fact that we give jobs to other countries, but if it improves their economy then realists would argue that it will help our economy as well. This was a new twist to the equation of economics for me.
I think that the US definitly has a realist approach to foriegn secuirty. A realist policy is almost neccessary for a country that can be considered a super power. In terms of interenational relations the US needs only to recognize other states as the true actors in the policy. The US also assumes a certain amount rationality from its allies and even its enemies. The US also puts a large emphasis on the idea of power=economic prowess + military strength. The US continually develops its military and economy in an effort to secure its borders. Bush's policy of "pre-emptive attacks" also shows a realist perspective. It shows the idea of Logic of Bandwagoning by attacking one country in the middle east it hopes that the rest of the countries will fall in line as well.
Since we talked about Hobbes as being an important influence in realism, I thought that I would do some background on him.
I can sum up all the boring details in a couple of lines. He was born in England in 1588, and his father left him and his two other siblings to be raised by thier older brother. He attented Hertford College around 1603 and recieved his B.A. in 1608. He attended the Grand Tour of Europe and became influenced by other European scientists and philsophers (the point of the Grand Tour).
He wrote Leviathan in 1651, which basically concerns the structure of society. The book was named after the biblical Leviathan (which was, in case anyone didn't know, was a large, coiled sea monster).
Hobbes argues in his book for a social contract and rule by an absolute sovereign. Influenced by the English Civil War, Hobbes wrote that chaos or civil war - situations identified with a state of nature and the motto "the war of all against all" - could only be averted by strong central government. He denied any right of rebellion toward the social contract. Hobbes did however, discuss the possible dissolution of the State. As the social contract was made to institute a state that would provide for the "peace and defence" of the people, the contract would become void if the government no longer protected its citizens. In such a case, man would automatically return to a state of nature until the creation of a new social contract.
I just like knowing some of the background of the people that we talk about. A lot of what we have been doing is theories and laws, so knowing about the people is an interesting side note. ... Just like pierogies... :D
I think America definitely has adopted a realist approach to US foreign policy. Ever since our isolationist policy ended during the first world war, we have had this realist policy. Our goal is to promote democracy throughout the world. In the Truman Doctrine, we vowed to do whatever it takes to end communism. This thought, proves are realist policy. We use military force and diplomacy to spread capitalism for our economic benefit.
I think that Bush is trying to gain control of vulnerable countries by encouraging them to have democratic governments. Right now he is trying to bring democracy to Iraq and surrounding countries; sooner than later if democracy is spread to these countries it only gives the powerful democratic countries more power to enforce them with western ideas, globalization and culture. I think that Bush is manipulating these people to help advance the US position of power. He will continue to step on as many people to get to the top. This is not fair to these countries, but then again when did the US ever think of the interest of others. We live in a self centered country and we believe in ethnocentrism, always thinking that our way is the better way!
I feel that the United States is very obviously a proponent of the realist position for a few reasons. First, I think that our involvement in Iraq had a lot to do with securing oil for the United States, and therefore shows our focus on ensuring our own economic success. Also, our alliance with England after 9/11 was an active example of our desire to protect ourselves from other states that may harm our security and status as a superpower. The United State's concern with remaining a superpower and the actions taken to ensure this show our realist position.
I believe that United States politics and realism have a lot in common. We have an offensive position against states that support terrorism. Because of the attacks on the United States, this means that our government has an offensive realistic approach to international relations. We are removing terroristic states to improve our own security, which is one of the core beliefs of realism. The war on terror was started in response to terrorist attacks on our state, which means our government fits another core belief of realists; states will relay on the threat or use of force to secure their objectives. We also constantly seek to maximize our power through our military. We have the biggest and most technologically advanced military in the world.
(This post was supposed to be my fourth post for September. I was having problems connecting my computer to the Internet all day yesterday, so I was hoping you could still count this post for September. Thanks)
While I agree that spreading Democracy (in Iraq or anywhere else) is also spreading a US ideal, it cannot be used as a justification for continuining to occupy Iraq. If our goal at the outset was to spread Deomcracy throughout the entire Middle East by first spreading it into Iraq, then we have failed. Our plan has not worked, if anything it has shown the Middle East that a transition to Democracy is extremely difficult, if not impossible. By continuing to fail in Iraq, we continue to show the Middle East and the rest of the world that we are inefficient in "changing nations into Democracies" and simply will not bight the bullet when unsuccessful
In today's modern era, it is safe to say that most states are geared by goals of self interest and i don't think the Bush administration is any different. Although coutries may share common interests, coutries do what they do to protect or further advance themselves first, and others later if it happens to work out. I believe strongly in the US goal to spread democracy throughout the world. However i believe there are certain areas in the world that will simply never take to democracy, such as areas of the middle east and Muslim countries. These coutries have a deep hatred for the US and our democracy that dates back generations. These areas must simply be contained and controlled rather than forced into democracy. If it is apparent that democracy will not work and a country is identified as a threat it is important to maintain a close watch on that area to assure global security....but sometimes democracy just doesn't fit...
25 comments:
Offensive Realism and Mrs. T's Pierogies
Most of my extended family resides in Pennsylvania and we love pierogies. Until a few years ago when visiting in Pa I would buy my favorite pierogies from Hanka Pierogies in Hellertown. Mrs. T’s however, wanted to secure its power as a strong pierogi manufacturer and bought out Hanka closing their store. In wiping out Hanka, a competitor, Mrs. T’s improved its position. Though I miss Hanka, Mrs. T’s is lucky I also enjoy their pierogies.
Francesca Carregal
Wow. Offensive realism meets baked goods. The world is truly a strange place.
While discussing Realism, I couldn't help but think of Stephen Colbert and his reaction to the Bush administration's comments regarding the war in Iraq. Despite his persona, I think it shows a specific lense when regarding offensive realism.
One of the goals to achieve security is to expand and wipe out competitors. You could argue expansion in a number of different visions, but I would like to focus on expanding democracy.
The latest explanation for remaining in Iraq is to spread Democracy, not only in Iraq, but also neighboring countries. We can eradicate threats by changing them into something we want, such as Democratic nations. We maintain our security and power by creating a pseudo allie in that they are also a Democratic state.
Spreading democracy can be viewed as a liberalist view, however, it is still expansion of a US ideal. We create the governments we want in other nations in order to avoid developing leaders who will change the balance of power.
-Michael Molaski
If the Bush administration truly believes that spreading democracy is beneficial to American and international security, then they cannot be said to have a realist approach. Just because a nation is a democracy does not necessarily mean that it will work in favor of American interests. The United States has opposed democratic nations in the past, such as Chile under Salvador Allende. Bush might believe that a democracy in Iraq will bolster American security, yet the elections in Iraq have led to a Shiite majority that uses its power to ethnically cleanse Sunni areas. Is this good for American security in the long run?
Further, an independent, democratic Iraq might at some point elect a leader who is anti-American. They might elect a leader who wants closer ties to Iran, which the current administration views as a threat. This is not an unlikely scenario, given that Iraq is a majority Shiite nation.
The idea that this administration is actually as pro-democracy as it claims is questionable. When the Palestinians elected Hamas over Fatah, the administration, among others, took punitive action against the Palestinians. It seems to me that if you are in favor of democracy, you should not take actions that provide disincentives for democracy. What good is democracy for the Palestinians if making the "wrong" choice leads to economic hardship?
It is difficult to determine the extent to which offensive realism plays a part in US foreign policy. Is the administration's alleged desire to spread democracy to be taken seriously? If it is, does that mean it is not realist, or is it offensive realism in the sense that more democracy supposedly leads to more US control over more territory? Offensive realism, after all, is based on expansion of power. The US is obviously not trying to directly control territory. I think it likely that the administration envisions a future Iraq as some kind of proxy to use against perceived and actual threats in the region (Iran, China, Russia).
Offensive realism seems to be a policy most suited to powerful nations such as the US, which have the capacity to expand their power. Defensive realism would be more likely to be found in weaker nations like Holland or Spain.
In summary, I believe that the administration is a mix of realists and idealists. Bush himself is probably the latter, as was Paul Wolfowitz. Colin Powell was more of a realist, and a defensive one at that. Certainly in its early years, the administration was run by people who were not realists. Going by its rhetoric alone(especially regarding Iraq and Iran), it could be said that this is still the case today.
I agree that if we try to force our hand to make a country have elections that we should let them freely elect whoever they want. Democracy cannot be a one sided one party system. Is forcing a country to do what we want it to do through economic sanctions any different than the threat of military force? Is the US 'offensive realists' for democracy. In other words if we are not spreading democracy offensively then do we believe something else will take its place? Maybe not trying to take over the world ourselves, just to have democracy take over the world. Would this actually make the US any safer... We would probably just upset more people, leading to more terrorism. Forcing our ideas on people seems to be the best recruiting tool the terrorists have. Maybe the best defense would just be a good defense and not a good offense.
Geoff Andersen
Offensive realism most accurately describes the U.S. in the sense that we are out to get what is beneficial for us. Wikipedia’s definition for America’s foreign policy is a goal "To create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of American people and the international community." I take it as the U.S. basically is trying to spread their philosophies in an aggressive form throughout the international community in securing that their will not be a threat from any outside nation. Conquer or be conquered. The United States has been relatively successful in terms of telling other nations what their plan is for the world and to stay within those bounds. Security is very important and the United States uses the offensive realism approach by being the bully in the situation and telling the other nation to back down or we will attack and destroy you. I think it is fair to say that the Bush administration is solely interested in maintaining its nation’s security. The reason I say this is because Bush’s campaign from the start was to re-establish safety in the U.S. after the terrorist attacks. Although I believe we should work on some of our economic issues, I think it is right for the Bush administration to work on maintaining security in a world with nuclear weapons.
James Squillante
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
This article is a perfect example of the U.S. selfishly trying to impose a certain order over the Iraqi government, regardless of what they feel is best for their own country.
"The prime minister also said he discussed the role of U.S. troops and private security contractors in the country, stressing that Iraq is a sovereign nation and it should have control over its own security.
Security 'is something related to Iraq's sovereignty and its independence and it should not be violated,' he said."
I think that the U.S. government is using unneccessary violence and threat to try to ensure that Iraq become a democracy, and they are trying not to give them any control over what happens within their country. If Iraq were a demcracy like our country, it would cause much less conflict for us which is why our government is pushing it so hard, I just think that they need to be more careful and not as harsh.
--Katharine Gray
American foreign policy is not based completely on Realism, but I think it plays a big part, especially concerning distribution of power. Ever since America started to hold power over other countries, we have been worried about keeping it. Our leaders have definitely believed that distribution of power in the world is the most important cause of outcomes and global events, like in the 1950s with Communism. Today, we still see political differences as a threat, and are using threat and force in places like Iraq to take down dictatorships. We're not doing this for the good of the world, but to keep America's standing as the most powerful nation, or at least one of them. Our foreign policy is driven almost completely by our need and want for economic prowess and military strength.
Following that line of thought, it does seem that the Bush administration is geared by self-interested goals of security. I think if they were following bandwagoning logic, they could figure that dictatorships and other governments would see how well democracy works and follow that. (It's interesting to consider that America tends to apply bandwagoning logic in only a negative sense.) But I think the administration feels threatened by other countries' different methods, and is thus driven by a need to ensure our security.
(above comment posted by Katie Head)
I think that the U.S. does follow realism very much in its approach to foreign policy. We believe that other countries having difficulties means that we should interfere in their affairs. In this way, I think that the U.S. is a little too egocentric in its actions, but as a world power, it's not met by much resistance (overall). We also fit the description because more of our tax money goes to our military than anything else, in our attempt to maximize our power and feeling of security.
However, to say that the Bush administration is solely using personal interest in security might be a bit harsh. It does seem like a major driving force behind our actions, but I think that in any actions, there are lesser motivations as well. That being said, I also think we are sometimes way too focused on our own security instead of other important things happening in the world and in our own country.
If our realist status is based on our defense budget, then we are defiantly realists. Although to put things in perspective both ways. We spend about 20% more on defense than we do on social security, and our military budget is about 3.7% of our GDP. These things make the spending look smaller. On the flip side we spend more than anyone else in the world in terms of dollars, ( more than the next fourteen largest spenders combined). So interpret this yourself, but if its about how much we spend on defense, then we must be realists. By the way, the stats came from Wikipedia.
Geoff Andersen
In response to: Would it be fair to say that the Bush administration is solely geared by self-interested goals of security?
Yes, but that goes for any president's administration, in my opinion.
To be honest I was surprised when I learned the definition of realism in class. It seemed like one of those things that didn't need to be made into a theory or thesis. Of course every state is "motivated by the desire for military and economic power or security." It would be impossible to find a country that this term didn't apply to. I don't see any sort of arguement against it.
America went into Iraq partly because Saddam was a ruthless dictator who brutalized his own people, but also because we saw an opportunity to remove one of our biggest opponents and install a democracy.
Maybe I do not understand the word properly. Can someone provide a country or US president that they feel hasn't been motivated by realism?
-Gabe DiPietro
I agree with the people who say that U.S. foreign policy is realist. There a debate about neo-con foreign policy vs. realism, but I think that the ideals of neo-con foreign policy are not completely independent of realism, that they can only compliment it. The War in Iraq was fought because it concerned with American security; Saddam was a threat, and he supported terrorism. The Ideal of spreading democracy to the Middle East while great, was not the main reason for the war, but an additional benefit. President Bush is an offensive realist. If you listen to many of his speeches you will hear him say that under his administration the U.S. is on the offensive in the war on terror and that it is necessary to stay on the offense to keep America safe.
Britt Chalmers
I think concerning Iraq our foreign policy is absolutely realist. The entire notion of preemptive war or removing a perceived threat before it arises is a realist concept and this is what the Bush administration did to justify regime change in Iraq.
I believe the current justification for remaining in Iraq of spreading democracy or making it safe for democracy was simply an attempt to give the American people a goal to aspire for to keep support for the war up. But while it doesn't appear to be a realist idea a secondary goal of building a successful democratic Iraq is that it would be much less likely to be a threat to us as compared to an unstable Iraq serving as a training ground for Al Qaeda. So while on its face spreading democracy is not a realist idea its impact certainly carries with it realist goals of ensuring security.
Charles (C.J.) Augustine
We invaded Iraq to make the Iraqi people more like us, so that we will be more comfortable. It doesn't get much more realist than that, especially when you look at one of the core beliefs of realism being for the State to seek to maximize their power or security. One of the biggest reasons, I believe, for the difficulty in bringing democracy into the middle east, is our methodology. We have, so far, used primarily money and war to bring change, while failing to realize that it takes a certain amount of cultural insight to bring democracy. Like idiots, we have offended the Muslim people every way we've turned. I think that realist foreign policy works well to justify part of why we are still in Iraq, yet it appears that we have been so ignorant and have ignored the cultural integrity of Islam. The Bush administration is ridden with false bravura and they need to change the lense on the scope of the situation. The realist ideology makes sense here, but in order to bring such drastic change to a nation like Islam, we need to go deeper than money and war.
Gordon Lippincott
http://www.nationalinterest.org/General.aspx?id=92&id2=15372
This article explains how during the start of the was in Iraq, the United States was focusing primarily on Al-Qaea and its affiliates, but now, America has taken a new approach on its war. Vice President for Policy, Llan Berman, stated that the Bush administration needs a “wider war on terror – one that targets not only Al-Qaeda but the world’s leading state sponsor on terrorism, the Islamic Republic of Iran as well.” If isn’t an example of offensive realism, I don’t know what is. America has taken contiualy taken more steps towards hegemony. At the rate this is going, America will be hated by everyone, and as Geoff Andersen stated, “We would probably just upset more people, leading to more terrorism.” I think America should focus more on internal aspect of balancing power.
-John Georges
"This principle lies at the heart of progressive realism. A correlation of fortunes — being in the same boat with other nations in matters of economics, environment, security — is what makes international governance serve national interest. It is also what makes enlightened self-interest de facto humanitarian. Progressive realists see that America can best flourish if others flourish — if African states cohere, if the world’s Muslims feel they benefit from the world order, if personal and environmental health are nurtured, if economic inequities abroad are muted so that young democracies can be stable and strong. More and more, doing well means doing good."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/opinion/16wright.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1
I thought this article was really interesting, especially this paragraph. It really made me think about globalization and outsourcing. Most Americans hate the fact that we give jobs to other countries, but if it improves their economy then realists would argue that it will help our economy as well. This was a new twist to the equation of economics for me.
-- bethany kravitz
I think that the US definitly has a realist approach to foriegn secuirty. A realist policy is almost neccessary for a country that can be considered a super power. In terms of interenational relations the US needs only to recognize other states as the true actors in the policy. The US also assumes a certain amount rationality from its allies and even its enemies. The US also puts a large emphasis on the idea of power=economic prowess + military strength. The US continually develops its military and economy in an effort to secure its borders. Bush's policy of "pre-emptive attacks" also shows a realist perspective. It shows the idea of Logic of Bandwagoning by attacking one country in the middle east it hopes that the rest of the countries will fall in line as well.
~Kevin Wright
Thomas Hobbes
Since we talked about Hobbes as being an important influence in realism, I thought that I would do some background on him.
I can sum up all the boring details in a couple of lines. He was born in England in 1588, and his father left him and his two other siblings to be raised by thier older brother. He attented Hertford College around 1603 and recieved his B.A. in 1608. He attended the Grand Tour of Europe and became influenced by other European scientists and philsophers (the point of the Grand Tour).
He wrote Leviathan in 1651, which basically concerns the structure of society. The book was named after the biblical Leviathan (which was, in case anyone didn't know, was a large, coiled sea monster).
Hobbes argues in his book for a social contract and rule by an absolute sovereign. Influenced by the English Civil War, Hobbes wrote that chaos or civil war - situations identified with a state of nature and the motto "the war of all against all" - could only be averted by strong central government. He denied any right of rebellion toward the social contract. Hobbes did however, discuss the possible dissolution of the State. As the social contract was made to institute a state that would provide for the "peace and defence" of the people, the contract would become void if the government no longer protected its citizens. In such a case, man would automatically return to a state of nature until the creation of a new social contract.
I just like knowing some of the background of the people that we talk about. A lot of what we have been doing is theories and laws, so knowing about the people is an interesting side note. ... Just like pierogies... :D
- Megan Pettingill
I think America definitely has adopted a realist approach to US foreign policy. Ever since our isolationist policy ended during the first world war, we have had this realist policy. Our goal is to promote democracy throughout the world. In the Truman Doctrine, we vowed to do whatever it takes to end communism. This thought, proves are realist policy. We use military force and diplomacy to spread capitalism for our economic benefit.
---Kris-Ann Panzella
I think that Bush is trying to gain control of vulnerable countries by encouraging them to have democratic governments. Right now he is trying to bring democracy to Iraq and surrounding countries; sooner than later if democracy is spread to these countries it only gives the powerful democratic countries more power to enforce them with western ideas, globalization and culture. I think that Bush is manipulating these people to help advance the US position of power. He will continue to step on as many people to get to the top. This is not fair to these countries, but then again when did the US ever think of the interest of others. We live in a self centered country and we believe in ethnocentrism, always thinking that our way is the better way!
ddepina@udel.edu
I feel that the United States is very obviously a proponent of the realist position for a few reasons. First, I think that our involvement in Iraq had a lot to do with securing oil for the United States, and therefore shows our focus on ensuring our own economic success. Also, our alliance with England after 9/11 was an active example of our desire to protect ourselves from other states that may harm our security and status as a superpower. The United State's concern with remaining a superpower and the actions taken to ensure this show our realist position.
I believe that United States politics and realism have a lot in common. We have an offensive position against states that support terrorism. Because of the attacks on the United States, this means that our government has an offensive realistic approach to international relations. We are removing terroristic states to improve our own security, which is one of the core beliefs of realism. The war on terror was started in response to terrorist attacks on our state, which means our government fits another core belief of realists; states will relay on the threat or use of force to secure their objectives. We also constantly seek to maximize our power through our military. We have the biggest and most technologically advanced military in the world.
(This post was supposed to be my fourth post for September. I was having problems connecting my computer to the Internet all day yesterday, so I was hoping you could still count this post for September. Thanks)
-Andrew Deinert
While I agree that spreading Democracy (in Iraq or anywhere else) is also spreading a US ideal, it cannot be used as a justification for continuining to occupy Iraq. If our goal at the outset was to spread Deomcracy throughout the entire Middle East by first spreading it into Iraq, then we have failed. Our plan has not worked, if anything it has shown the Middle East that a transition to Democracy is extremely difficult, if not impossible. By continuing to fail in Iraq, we continue to show the Middle East and the rest of the world that we are inefficient in "changing nations into Democracies" and simply will not bight the bullet when unsuccessful
Kevin Moreno
In today's modern era, it is safe to say that most states are geared by goals of self interest and i don't think the Bush administration is any different. Although coutries may share common interests, coutries do what they do to protect or further advance themselves first, and others later if it happens to work out. I believe strongly in the US goal to spread democracy throughout the world. However i believe there are certain areas in the world that will simply never take to democracy, such as areas of the middle east and Muslim countries. These coutries have a deep hatred for the US and our democracy that dates back generations. These areas must simply be contained and controlled rather than forced into democracy. If it is apparent that democracy will not work and a country is identified as a threat it is important to maintain a close watch on that area to assure global security....but sometimes democracy just doesn't fit...
-Ryan Adam-
Post a Comment