wrapping it all up in a nice little package
Billy Pilgrim
The Nazi issue:
apparently everyone missed the point. everyone assumed i was saying
amerikan actions were "the first step on a slippery slope to nazism" or
some such thing.
that's not the point at all. the real point i was trying to make is argued
by robert lifton and erik markusen in their book, the genocidal mentality.
they argue that nazi holocaust and realism (power politics) are both based
on the idea of "killing to heal." teh people who participated in the nazi
movement were not simply hate machines; in almost every case they were real
breathing, feeling human beings who had to perform an exercise in
doublethink to ever conceive of the 'final solution.'
the psychological manuever they enacted was simple. they believed that
jewish people, gypsies, homosexuals, etc were diseases. they allowed
themselves to believe that 'humans' would die if these races were allowed
to contaminate the gene-pool. the 'solution?' burn them all.
not just burn them, but make them pay for being so evil. once they were
able to conceive of jews as being inhuman, all manner of terrible
disgusting and tear-wrenching things became possible in their minds. for
anyone who's seen life is beautiful, that message should be clear.
THAT, ladies and gentlemen, was my point. the us is currently engaged in
an attempt to 'kill to heal.' my argument is that structurally, that idea
is no different that nazism.
now, onto the idealism/realism/whatever argument going on...
first, something that should be done: identify what the hell Realism (with
a capital R) means. this will clear up a whole hell of a lot.
this is NOT simply a debate about realistic solutions v. idealism. this is
a complex debate about the structure of international relations theory.
the debate going on has been both over-simplified AND over-complicated.
therefore: as described by jim george...
The contemporary punch line to the Realist story--the post-World War II
power politics approach--has been variously articulated over the years.
But a number of fundamental assumptions continue to form this, the "hard
core" of Realist theory and practice, and, for the great majority of
contemporary scholars, they continue to define it in the 1990s. These
assumptions are as follows: First, individual sovereign states (or their
official diplomatic representatives) are the most important actors on the
world stage and must therefore by the primary units of International
Relations analysis. Second, the international arena is is the site of
endemic anarchy and is fundamentally different from the domestic one
(accordingly, its theory and practice must be understood in fundamentally
different terms). Third, in both historical and contemporary terms, the
"essence" of interstate behavior is the struggle for power. Fourth, this
struggle, for all its anarchical consequences, follows a 'rational'
pattern, the utilitarian pursuit of (national) self-interest on the part of
all actors. Fifth, while there are (societal) cooperative tendencies
evident within the state system (e.g., regime behavior), these should not
be understood as fundamental systemic characteristics. This approach,
consequently, for all its posturing toward an international political
economy in recent times, has continued to represent the world in terms of
mankind as divided into seperate, sovereign states, keeping law and order
within its borders by the application of force from the center, and also
using force to keep secure against other states. Relations between states
are conducted by diplomacy, against a background of military preparedness
and alliances and within a limited code of international law of which
states, not people, are the subjects.
i would urge you to re-read that if you didn't get it the first time. the
whole rub of this conversation should be based on that paragraph.
realism is a doctrine of thought that was codified immediately after world
war ii. scholars of international relations were so terrified of what had
happened in the isolationist world preceding the war, they desperately
sought some possible doctrine that would not leave them open to another
such war.
what was developed was an interpretation of international politics that
specified that the world is by nature anarchical and made up of sovereign
states who interact with each other. this doctrine of realism states that
there is inevitably a 'power vacuum' and if one doesn't take up as much of
that power as possible, others will take it and use it against you. only
force can check force. that is POWER POLITICS.
(see, i made it all capital letters so you would notice it. it's
important)
unfortunately, it backfired. what began as an interpretation of global
politics almost immediately, in the face of a dawning cold war, dogma. it
became unquestionable. to do so was to be labelled a commie, a pinkie, a
traitor, or worse. history became objectified. vietnam became a necessary
war because of the domino effect. the alternative that is called for 500
times in posts on this newsgroup is not really that complex. we were DOING
the alternative (or one of them) for portions of time in the last several
hundred years of politics.
jim george has made the most complex and complete analysis of power
politics and its relationship to contemporary international relations
theory that i've yet come across. in his book, he concludes, quite
logically, that the idea of power politics, both by an immediate moral
interpretation, and by actual facts and information has actually created a
substantially higher number of problems than it has fixed.
once again, i'll refer you to jim george, because he speaks more eloquently
than i ever could:
"those at the apex of the International Relations community do not
understand the implications of the questions they ask of their history.
Specifically, what a critical social theory perspective illustrates is that
power politics behavior is not endemic in global history, nor is it the
cause of 'peace' greatly assisted by the Traditional solutions when it does
occur. Rather, the dominant historical narrative in International
Relations is both inaccurate in its own terms and highly dangerous in
anyone's terms, given that by Realism's own literary account the Realist
'solution' to warlike activity in an anarchical world is to effectively
accelerate the liklihood of war."
you may claim that realism will bring peace, you may even believe it, but,
like bradley klein says (in the quote that will be on the backs of the oak
harbor debate shirts as soon as drew gets them made...):
"Peace may be relative but it depends where your relatives live. For those
with families in Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad,
Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Namibia, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland,
Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan and the West Bank, life these past few years has
been wracked with war."
go ahead and add kosovo to that list.
let's run down a list of things that have happened because we bombed kosovo
--innocent people have died
--russia has pulled out of the partnership for peace
--russia is seriously talking of a 'new cold war'
--china and russia are honestly beginning that russo-sino bloc we've been
so scared of
--milosevic hasn't lost a shred of power
--hundreds of thousands of people have been forced INTO a choice between
emigration or death
--i'm scared to death
there's dozens more things i could write, specifics, certainly, but it's
VERY late and i'm tired and i'm sure you know most of them. the point is:
be afraid, people.
finally,
realism DOES NOT WORK. you ask for an alternative. i say:
1. even if there is no other ideology, that does not make this right. you
fail to understand that sitting on ours asses IS an alternative. 'not
bombing' is an action. that IS an alternative
2. you say idealism has failed. i say gandhi, martin luther king, the
civil rights movement, the END OF THE COLD WAR, these things were not
expected by anyone (certainly not the realists). i say, the fact that
international politics has been so unendingly dreadful is not testament to
the fact that idealism doesn't work, but to the fact that it hasn't been
TRIED.
3. here's a thought. there's a country in europe (a cookie to the first
person who knows which country) that has repeatedly ignored overatures for
admission to NATO. it has no military, per se. it simply maintains a
force for the sole purpose of defending itself. anyone messes with them is
going to get his ass kicked, but if you don't screw with them, they're the
nicest people in the world. it CAN happen. it's not easy, but that
doesn't mean it's not worth trying.
4. from a critical perspective, there are dozens, hundreds of
alternatives. post-modernism is filled with differing perspectives and new
possibilities. a new dialogue, a new understanding of the world, a step
away from a focus on humanistic evalutions. destroying the self/other
dichotomy. taking the binary oppositions inherent in language (especially
realist language) and flipping them on their heads. all are possible.
only our minds and our hearts seperate us from those possibilities.
one specific thought: SCENARIO PLANNING...ask drew. or i'll explain it
tomorrow when i'm not so damn tired.
a final thought (for real this time). you say freedom is more important
than love. i ask: what is freedom without love? is freedom the ability
to move one's arms however one wishes, to think however one wishes, to
exist however one wishes?
that would be my interpretation. i assume it is also yours...
(dramatic pause)
then realize this. freedom without love means everyone has the right to do
ANYTHING and no one cares if something bad happens to other people because
that idea doesn't matter to them. in other words: lord of the flies times
6 billion.
in order to achieve your ideal conception of freedom: where everyone is
free to live as they choose, and no one exercises their freedom in a manner
to deprive another of his freedom is impossible...
unless there is love. with love, anything can happen. people can exist
together in peace and harmony, not because of guns or laws or fighting, but
because of beauty and wonder and caring.
no, i can't make milosevic love me or anyone else. but i can reduce the
killing by half and go give the poor man a hug. there's something wrong
inside him and there's something wrong inside us. pointing guns isn't
going to make him change, maybe pointing flowers will.
hey, it's worth a try. nothing else seems to work.
okay. that's it. for real this time.
i think that should answer almost all of the questions
maybe we're being to naive
but this is something we believe
what's beyond belief is just how much is wrong
--mighty mighty bosstones
"It is all about how honest we choose to be; we can choose to hide behind
the stategic, the dissasembling, and the double-dealing, or we can stand
forth and speak what we believe."
--Mark Pedretti
You may say I'm a dreamer
but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
and the world will live as one
--John Lennon
you're threatened by my mind
you want everything the same
my questions still remain
you boycott your brain
you answer with fists
my question still persists
you can rearrange my face but you can't rearrange my mind
you can beat this shell about me but you can't touch what's inside
--propagandhi
The solution is simple: dream, hope, think, spin around in circles, wear
purple, think peace, hug trees, live life, be happy, read Thoreau, write
poetry, smile, love...
Charles Olney
Oak Harbor, WA
Living my life forever with the memory of Julia Burke and all that she
could have been. Your bright star snuffed too soon, my only goal now is to
honor your life by living my own. We all loved you, Julia.
Hoping and praying for Becky Galentine. She'll outlast us all, I bet. The
most beautiful woman in the world in my book.
Robert
debate I have missed. Some of the files have already been scrubbed from my
server, so I may have missed a few posts...and I will admit freely that I only
scanned the 800+ line posts. But: I feel I must step in to defend Realism at
this point, even if the rest of the debate is over.
<Nazism stuff clipped> Frankly, I agree that the bombings are at least
metaphorically similar.
>
> now, onto the idealism/realism/whatever argument going on...
>
> first, something that should be done: identify what the hell Realism (with
> a capital R) means. this will clear up a whole hell of a lot.
> described by jim george...
> <clip>
> "First, individual sovereign states (or their
> official diplomatic representatives) are the most important actors on the
> world stage and must therefore by the primary units of International
> Relations analysis. Second, the international arena is is the site of
> endemic anarchy and is fundamentally different from the domestic one
> (accordingly, its theory and practice must be understood in fundamentally
> different terms). Third, in both historical and contemporary terms, the
> "essence" of interstate behavior is the struggle for power. Fourth, this
> struggle, for all its anarchical consequences, follows a 'rational'
> pattern, the utilitarian pursuit of (national) self-interest on the part of
> all actors. Fifth, while there are (societal) cooperative tendencies
> evident within the state system (e.g., regime behavior), these should not
> be understood as fundamental systemic characteristics. This approach,
> consequently, for all its posturing toward an international political
> economy in recent times, has continued to represent the world in terms of
> mankind as divided into seperate, sovereign states, keeping law and order
> within its borders by the application of force from the center, and also
> using force to keep secure against other states. Relations between states
> are conducted by diplomacy, against a background of military preparedness
> and alliances and within a limited code of international law of which
> states, not people, are the subjects."
I leave this here because I do think it is important to read and compare.
> realism is a doctrine of thought that was codified immediately after world
> war ii. scholars of international relations were so terrified of what had
> happened in the isolationist world preceding the war, they desperately
> sought some possible doctrine that would not leave them open to another
> such war.
I disagree with one aspect here. I don't think it was isolationism necessarily
that they feared. Most Americans still remembered the problems of entangling
alliances which caused W.W.I. The problem was that they had had strict
military alliances and a war happened, then they had isolationism and a war
happened. They weren't rejecting one or the other, they were looking for a
more mature military doctrine that rejected either as a fundamental precursor.
That being said, what was it that Wilsonian international relations had most
been founded on? Idealism. Eisenhower rejected this doctrine in favor of a
cold austerity based on strict military training. It assumed that states were
not moral or immoral in nature but that they were interested in self
preservation. You claim this as Hobbesian, I tend to think even further back
to Machiavelli. Now, realizing the problems of having a human populace
enacting an amoral politic, Eisenhower began developing very strict military
intervention strategy, based on self interest of the nation. He developed
criteria for self interest, and developed a military strategy of Brinkmanship
to limit conventional forces...to limit the chance of intervention for
idealistic reasoning. (It is hard for countries led by moral people to stand
by and watch bad things happen, even when it is in the interest of the nation).
> what was developed was an interpretation of international politics that
> specified that the world is by nature anarchical and made up of sovereign
> states who interact with each other. this doctrine of realism states that
> there is inevitably a 'power vacuum' and if one doesn't take up as much of
> that power as possible, others will take it and use it against you. only
> force can check force. that is POWER POLITICS.
This is termed "Offensive Realism" It has been rejected by most historians.
Defensive Realism claims that the state expands its influence when it (its
leaders) perceive a threat from abroad. (Zakaria p.42) In other words, the
vacuum shifts slowly sometimes and quickly other times. When it is shifting
slowly or not at all, the state should not attempt to expand influence, as that
may trigger a vacuum struggle. This doctrine is the basis of Nixon's policy
towards China. The Russians were attempting to expand their influence in SE
Asia. And since our policy to remove them was failing, we could attempt to
influence China positively which would cause the vacuum to equal out. At the
same time, he reversed the decisions made by earlier administrations. Let's
discuss those decisions: Most argue that the decision to enter Vietnam was
made on Realism. However, it was Kennedy's idealistic claim that we would "pay
any price, bear any burden" to oppose aggressors and defend allies of
"freedom". WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH NATIONAL INTEREST? He wrote a blank
check for idealism. Of course, in policy terms, the cold warriors relabeled
aggressors based on ideology rather than actions. Authoritarian bastards were
fine as long as they weren't Communist. This goes back to redefining the enemy
mentioned above. That part has nothing to do with realism vs idealism. But
once it is done, the issue can be couched in idealistic terms ("we have to stop
the communists who are evil") or realism terms (Domino effect). Clearly, a
Realistic policy in SE Asia would be to say, gee that sucks, here is some
economic and/or military aid, we hope everything works out for you. And if the
Reds started knocking on our door (or the door of relevant allies) we would
fight. I know it stinks to say, "this country is important to our defense
while this one is not" but let's face it, what could Vietnam do for us
strategically? At the same time, we attempt to expand our influence in ways
that mitigate the expansion of the Soviets, especially within the theater (ie
China, Japan, Korea)
<Revisionist tripe about Vietnam clipped>
> go ahead and add kosovo to that list.
How is Kosovo from a Realist perspective? Aren't we doing it to save all the
people from ethnic cleansing and refugeeism? Even the neighboring countries
don't really fear a spread of conflict from the KLA/Serbian warfare. In fact,
they are more afraid of refugee problems and warfare caused by our bombing. It
isn't strategic interest that is getting us involved in Kosovo. Realists would
say stay out of their problems except for supporting them with sanctions and
aid. Prime Realists like Kissinger, Pat Buchanan, and several members of the
foreign relations committee have proven this point. (For emphasis, both of
these have opposed the bombings and both were instrumental in Nixon's
redefinition of Realism)
Those supporting it do so from idealistic perspectives.
<Clip about reasons we shouldn't be bombing. Since I agree, it irrelevant to
this post>
> finally,
>
> realism DOES NOT WORK. you ask for an alternative. i say:
> 1. even if there is no other ideology, that does not make this right. you
> fail to understand that sitting on ours asses IS an alternative. 'not
> bombing' is an action. that IS an alternative
Your right about inaction being an alternative. Ain't it a shame that people
are more worried about a civil war in a remote part of the world than about
long term strategic alliances? Of course, if Realism means constantly
expanding power at any cost then it won't work. But Realism is not
isolationist or expansionist. It seeks to decide on strategic rather than on
idealistic terms where and when to act.
> 2. you say idealism has failed. i say gandhi, martin luther king, the
> civil rights movement, the END OF THE COLD WAR, these things were not
> expected by anyone (certainly not the realists). i say, the fact that
> international politics has been so unendingly dreadful is not testament to
> the fact that idealism doesn't work, but to the fact that it hasn't been
> TRIED.
As pointed out above, Idealism has and is being tried. Only when we give up
ideas about moral crusades can we actually build relationships among people.
We do a much better job spreading freedom when we are not brow-beating our
"enemies" for human rights violations and trying to give real incentives to
work with us as equals or compete with us and potential aggressors. Secondly,
look back to your definition of Realism and note that it is specific to Foreign
Affairs. Domestic actions regarding civil rights etc. are outside of its
scope. By all means, our domestic situation is nothing like the international
arena of politics and warfare. We can and should assume an idealistic approach
to fixing our own problems internally. But when we are dealing with nations,
whose intentions are unknown, we should hope for the best and prepare for the
worst. I contend that the fall of the Cold War was completed by two or three
of the biggest Realists ever known. Nixon, for playing China against Russia
and even the balance (that act alone made most START negotiations and detente
possible), Reagan for standing firm when our interests were at stake (Iran,
Germany, Central America--although he did get bogged down in the same
demonizing of communism that others had done here) and to a lesser extent Bush
(more during his time at the CIA than as president, but in terms of firm but
friendly negotiations in office as well).
Pretty weird for a guy that usually votes democratic.
> 3. here's a thought. there's a country in europe (a cookie to the first
> person who knows which country) that has repeatedly ignored overatures for
> admission to NATO. it has no military, per se. it simply maintains a
> force for the sole purpose of defending itself. anyone messes with them is
> going to get his ass kicked, but if you don't screw with them, they're the
> nicest people in the world. it CAN happen. it's not easy, but that
> doesn't mean it's not worth trying.
I hope you aren't talking about Switzerland. It doesn't need much of a
military. Who could invade it? One or two guy with rifles can keep anyone
from coming into through the passes in the mountains.
> 4. from a critical perspective, there are dozens, hundreds of
> alternatives. post-modernism is filled with differing perspectives and new
> possibilities. a new dialogue, a new understanding of the world, a step
> away from a focus on humanistic evalutions. destroying the self/other
> dichotomy. taking the binary oppositions inherent in language (especially
> realist language) and flipping them on their heads. all are possible.
> only our minds and our hearts seperate us from those possibilities.
Yeah, hundreds...which one is correct? Also, how do we get others to accept
these? Fiat? As a nation with significant resources, who deals with others
regularly, we have to accept the fact that at times, crazy people come to
power, someone gets a bright idea or whatever and suddenly we are at or near
war. We HAVE to assume that is possible from all sides, especially from those
with significant resources. IF we value our continued existence we have to
plan for that as a contingency.
> one specific thought: SCENARIO PLANNING...ask drew. or i'll explain it
> tomorrow when i'm not so damn tired.
Sounds like its from a realist perspective to me. If you are referring to
MiniMax then it is a variant of Realism which attempts to minimize the maximum
risk by planning for worst case scenarios. It still assumes those scenarios
are possible and that we have to plan because we can't read minds.
<Commie drivel clipped>
As for an Idealistic approach to Kosovo and Milosovic, pointing flowers isn't
going to do anymore than pointing guns. It sounds nice but sorry. Realism
would try to increase our relations with their allies (namely Russia) to stop
the conflict...continue negotiations...possibly engage in economic sanctioning
with ties for compliance (carrot and stick approach) or ignore the problem
altogether until it threatens our allies or becomes capable of doing so.
Sorry to post a gargantuan response, especially since I agree with the authors
policy just not the justification.
Rob Lawrence
meanmr...@my-dejanews.com
drh
In article <7dniro$vr$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Billy Pilgrim
world
> > war ii. scholars of international relations were so terrified of what
had
> > happened in the isolationist world preceding the war, they desperately
> > sought some possible doctrine that would not leave them open to another
> > such war.
>
> I disagree with one aspect here. I don't think it was isolationism
necessarily
> that they feared. Most Americans still remembered the problems of
entangling
> alliances which caused W.W.I. The problem was that they had had strict
> military alliances and a war happened, then they had isolationism and a
war
> happened. They weren't rejecting one or the other, they were looking for
a
> more mature military doctrine that rejected either as a fundamental
precursor.
> That being said, what was it that Wilsonian international relations had
most
> been founded on? Idealism.
a meshing of terms. idealism may have been a political philosophy or some
such thing that wilsonian politics were based on, but this is hardly the
idealism which i speak of. i'm not simply saying the united states should
be idealistic in choosing its politics, i'm advocating a doctrine of
post-realism. that is not just a simple idealistic perception.
> > what was developed was an interpretation of international politics that
> > specified that the world is by nature anarchical and made up of
sovereign
> > states who interact with each other. this doctrine of realism states
that
> > there is inevitably a 'power vacuum' and if one doesn't take up as much
of
> > that power as possible, others will take it and use it against you.
only
> > force can check force. that is POWER POLITICS.
>
> This is termed "Offensive Realism" It has been rejected by most
historians.
> Defensive Realism claims that the state expands its influence when it
(its
> leaders) perceive a threat from abroad. (Zakaria p.42) In other words,
the
> vacuum shifts slowly sometimes and quickly other times. When it is
shifting
> slowly or not at all, the state should not attempt to expand influence,
as that
> may trigger a vacuum struggle.
okay. i think it would be obvious that expansionism is flawed. no one is
arguing that point. however, i think the distinction between "offensive"
and "defensive" realism is artificial. you're still interpreting there
being a vacuum. you still believet that states should expand influence to
deal with certain threats that exist 'out there.' More on that below.
> This doctrine is the basis of Nixon's policy
> towards China. The Russians were attempting to expand their influence in
SE
> Asia. And since our policy to remove them was failing, we could attempt
to
> influence China positively which would cause the vacuum to equal out.
i'll admit i've focused less on the inner workings of the cold war
diplomacy than you have, so maybe i just don't understand this. i don't
see how this is not at the exact heart of international relations theory.
remember jim george's fifth "pillar" of IR theory:
"Fifth, while there are (societal) cooperative tendencies evident within
the state system (e.g., regime behavior), these should not be understood as
fundamental systemic characteristics."
the idea being that a balance of power doctrine, the idea of trying to
weigh things out to even the vacuum is exactly what is being criticized in
Discourses of Global Politics.
> At the
> same time, he reversed the decisions made by earlier administrations.
Let's
> discuss those decisions: Most argue that the decision to enter Vietnam
was
> made on Realism. However, it was Kennedy's idealistic claim that we
would "pay
> any price, bear any burden" to oppose aggressors and defend allies of
> "freedom". WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH NATIONAL INTEREST?
well, first of all, i think it's funny that so intelligent a person and
someone so well read on this issue would believe that for a single instant.
do you honestly believe the united states was embroiled in vietnam out of
pure altruism for the vietnamese people? do you honestly think we
engineered a coup there just for kicks? vietnam was a battle between the
united states and the soviet union, between capitalism and communism,
between realism and realism and realism and realism. it was a power
vacuum, and both sides stepped in to fill it. any other understanding of i
will simply laugh at unless you can provide me with actual warrants to
believe it. (and no, statements by politicians are not
warrants...remember, according to bill clinton, we fought in iraq to
'defend kuwait' as opposed to fighting for...OIL)
> He wrote a blank
> check for idealism. Of course, in policy terms, the cold warriors
relabeled
> aggressors based on ideology rather than actions. Authoritarian bastards
were
> fine as long as they weren't Communist. This goes back to redefining the
enemy
> mentioned above. That part has nothing to do with realism vs idealism.
But
> once it is done, the issue can be couched in idealistic terms ("we have
to stop
> the communists who are evil") or realism terms (Domino effect).
no no no. i think you're misconceiving what post-realism is. that's
mostly my fault for allowing it to simply be labelled 'idealism.'
post-realism would not play the game that you're playing above. i would
say, 'love is the answer' and that fighting a war in vietnam is
structurally flawed. my point is that both examples you list above are the
same. they are merely differing facets of IR theory.
> Clearly, a
> Realistic policy in SE Asia would be to say, gee that sucks, here is some
> economic and/or military aid, we hope everything works out for you. And
if the
> Reds started knocking on our door (or the door of relevant allies) we
would
> fight.
realistic v. realism. realism has never been inherently focused on being
realistic. in fact, given that it demonizes by nature, it often loses
touch with reality. i just finished reading mother night by kurt vonnegut,
and campbell in that book provides a pretty fair method of understanding
why realism does what it does.
"I have never seen a more sublime demonstration of the totalitarian mind, a
mind which might be likened unto a system of gears whose teeth have been
filed off at random...The dismaying things about the classic totalitarian
mind is that any given gear, though mutilated, will have at its
circumference unbroken sequences of teeth that are immaculately maintained,
that are exquisitely machined.
Hence the cuckoo clock in Hell--keeping perfect time for eight minutes and
thirty-three seconds, jumping ahead fourteen minutes, keeping perfect time
for six seconds, jumping ahead two seconds, keeping perfect time for two
hours and one second, then jumping ahead a year.
The missing teeth, of course, are simple, obvious truths, truths available
and comprehensible even to ten-year-olds, in most cases."
in this case, a simple obvious truth would be "fighting is bad, guns kill,
and bombs suck."
> I know it stinks to say, "this country is important to our defense
> while this one is not" but let's face it, what could Vietnam do for us
> strategically? At the same time, we attempt to expand our influence in
ways
> that mitigate the expansion of the Soviets, especially within the theater
(ie
> China, Japan, Korea)
strategy is always the name of the game. i don't think it stinks to make
the above statement, i think it stinks that the rationale behind the above
statement is never questioned.
> <Revisionist tripe about Vietnam clipped>
actually, if you check back, you notice that none of the quotes from george
or klein talk about vietnam, they talk about international relations theory
and the flawed, cracked, disjointed nature of it. george points out that
evaluating the world EVEN FROM WITHIN THE LENS OF REALISM, power politics
has created, rather than stopped wars.
> > go ahead and add kosovo to that list.
>
> How is Kosovo from a Realist perspective? Aren't we doing it to save all
the
> people from ethnic cleansing and refugeeism?
the motives might be sound, but the tactics are not. attempting to 'bomb
someone into oblivion' is certainly realist. besides, i think it's mockery
to say that the US really has humanitarian interests at heart. it wants to
maintain leadership and not look like a tiger with no teeth. the very real
plight of the actual humans in kosovo is not particularly important in that
game.
> Even the neighboring countries
> don't really fear a spread of conflict from the KLA/Serbian warfare. In
fact,
> they are more afraid of refugee problems and warfare caused by our
bombing. It
> isn't strategic interest that is getting us involved in Kosovo. Realists
would
> say stay out of their problems except for supporting them with sanctions
and
> aid. Prime Realists like Kissinger, Pat Buchanan, and several members of
the
> foreign relations committee have proven this point. (For emphasis, both
of
> these have opposed the bombings and both were instrumental in Nixon's
> redefinition of Realism)
> Those supporting it do so from idealistic perspectives.
that's all pretty much explained above. it goes like this
me: "cars are structurally bad things. the mechanism of engines, tires,
windows, bucket seats, transmissions, etc. is a utterly bad thing"
you: "audis are better than fords and chevys"
realism is more than "strategic value" and other tripe. realism is a
doctrine of international relations. i sense that you're advocating some
sort of waltzian neo-realism. if that's the case, then there are tons of
seperate reasons that would be flawed. however, i won't get into them
here, unless it becomes an issue.
> > realism DOES NOT WORK. you ask for an alternative. i say:
> > 1. even if there is no other ideology, that does not make this right.
you
> > fail to understand that sitting on ours asses IS an alternative. 'not
> > bombing' is an action. that IS an alternative
>
> Your right about inaction being an alternative. Ain't it a shame that
people
> are more worried about a civil war in a remote part of the world than
about
> long term strategic alliances?
no. it's a shame people are worried about strategic alliances in the first
place.
> Of course, if Realism means constantly
> expanding power at any cost then it won't work. But Realism is not
> isolationist or expansionist. It seeks to decide on strategic rather
than on
> idealistic terms where and when to act.
EXACTLY. and my (as well as my authors') argument is that that ideology is
the center of the problem. it is a self/other dichotomy. it is a focus on
security, rather than life and love. it is the definition of a
constructionist value framework. that's bad.
> > 2. you say idealism has failed. i say gandhi, martin luther king, the
> > civil rights movement, the END OF THE COLD WAR, these things were not
> > expected by anyone (certainly not the realists). i say, the fact that
> > international politics has been so unendingly dreadful is not testament
to
> > the fact that idealism doesn't work, but to the fact that it hasn't
been
> > TRIED.
>
> As pointed out above, Idealism has and is being tried.
idealism might be, but not post-realism. that's above. sorry i didn't
clarify before.
> Only when we give up
> ideas about moral crusades can we actually build relationships among
people.
if we build relationships that are inherently created ONLY in the absence
of feelings and emotions, we are not creating relationships among people,
we are creating relationships among automatons. like winston and julia say
in 1984, 'we are the dead.' when we are forced to evaluate the world that
way, things inside us die that make us human. honestly, i'd rather be a
dead human than a living piece of equipment.
> Secondly,
> look back to your definition of Realism and note that it is specific to
Foreign
> Affairs. Domestic actions regarding civil rights etc. are outside of its
> scope. By all means, our domestic situation is nothing like the
international
> arena of politics and warfare. We can and should assume an idealistic
approach
> to fixing our own problems internally. But when we are dealing with
nations,
> whose intentions are unknown, we should hope for the best and prepare for
the
> worst.
that's just false.
"Second, the international arena is is the site of endemic anarchy and is
fundamentally different from the domestic one (accordingly, its theory and
practice must be understood in fundamentally different terms)."
in debate terms, this is what is called a 'link turn.'
realism posits that there is such a thing as FOREIGN and DOMESTIC policy,
that these are seperate and involve seperate things. that is the
definition of binary oppositions. that's no good. and that's the key to
understanding this argument.
> I contend that the fall of the Cold War was completed by two or three
> of the biggest Realists ever known.
i contend that the cold war was ended by a chain of events that no one in
the world truly expected. if you go back and read the literature of the
1980s, you'll find some very interesting things. not one, NOT ONE, of the
realists even mentioned the possibility of the collapse of the soviet
union. it was simply unthinkable. realism does not allow for such things
to happen. only post-realists came to the conclusion that it was even a
possibility. that is simply a historical fact.
you may be right, nixon, reagan, and bush may have contributed to the end
of the cold war, but they did not do it through realism. it is simply
impossible. realism as a doctrine would not allow the cold war to end.
that's all there is to it.
> > 3. here's a thought. there's a country in europe (a cookie to the
first
> > person who knows which country) that has repeatedly ignored overatures
for
> > admission to NATO. it has no military, per se. it simply maintains a
> > force for the sole purpose of defending itself. anyone messes with
them is
> > going to get his ass kicked, but if you don't screw with them, they're
the
> > nicest people in the world. it CAN happen. it's not easy, but that
> > doesn't mean it's not worth trying.
>
> I hope you aren't talking about Switzerland. It doesn't need much of a
> military. Who could invade it? One or two guy with rifles can keep
anyone
> from coming into through the passes in the mountains.
okay, partly true but you get the point. switzerland is probably more
'strategic' than most places, but it's not quite so unconquerable as that.
the idea still holds true, nations can defend themselves without beginning
a war-state that turns defense into offense.
> > 4. from a critical perspective, there are dozens, hundreds of
> > alternatives. post-modernism is filled with differing perspectives and
new
> > possibilities. a new dialogue, a new understanding of the world, a
step
> > away from a focus on humanistic evalutions. destroying the self/other
> > dichotomy. taking the binary oppositions inherent in language
(especially
> > realist language) and flipping them on their heads. all are possible.
> > only our minds and our hearts seperate us from those possibilities.
>
> Yeah, hundreds...which one is correct?
the idea of there being a 'correct' doctrine is wrong. nothing is that
simple. that's exactly the point.
> Also, how do we get others to accept
> these? Fiat?
of course not. we can't MAKE other people do what we want them to do.
that's what realism entails. it sets up a value system and beats other
people up if they disagree with that value system. i'm saying we should
step beyond that.
> As a nation with significant resources, who deals with others
> regularly, we have to accept the fact that at times, crazy people come to
> power, someone gets a bright idea or whatever and suddenly we are at or
near
> war.
bill clinton, george bush, ronald reagan, harry truman, etc. etc. etc.
yup. 'crazy' people do that. they start wars. however, simply attacking
them cuz they attacked somone with no brighter idea than realism doesn't
fix problems.
> > one specific thought: SCENARIO PLANNING...ask drew. or i'll explain it
> > tomorrow when i'm not so damn tired.
>
> Sounds like its from a realist perspective to me. If you are referring
to
> MiniMax then it is a variant of Realism which attempts to minimize the
maximum
> risk by planning for worst case scenarios. It still assumes those
scenarios
> are possible and that we have to plan because we can't read minds.
okay, so here's the story...
right now, when a conflict occurs, tempers flare, people are scared, they
see a problem and they want it fixed. a lot of scary rhetoric is thrown
around. there's very little time to react. that's exactly what you're
talking about above. someone crazy does something crazy and we have to do
something about it.
right now, we only have one value system. realism. there really isn't
another possibility. it's like only being able to speak english. you
encounter a problem and you've got to fix it. you've only got one way of
solving that problem, so you use it. that's the status quo.
scenario planning is a lot like learning multiple languages. say the
problem is with two french people. obviously simply yelling in english
isn't going to help--neither of them speak english. but suppose now you
know TWO language--english and french. you now have a possibility of
solving this problem.
okay, so suppose you know 300 language. you now have a plethora of options
should you encounter a crisis.
that's really all that scenario planning is. people sit down BEFORE
problems arise and think about different things that could be done to solve
those problems. there is no artificial sense of urgency or need to
immediately bomb to alleviate immediate problems.
perhaps realism might work in x situation. in that case, we'll have had
the chance to think about it and will use it accordingly. but suppose a
foucauldian understanding is necessary. that certainly isn't going to
happen in the status quo. it's too complex, too weird, too unknown.
but with scenario planning, we've already gotten rid of those problems, and
we can actually think about what ought to be done.
listen. billy pilgrim has come unstuck in time. realism is NOT 100% evil.
it is not the root of all problems, and is not bad in every situation. it
may, in fact, be necessary somewhere along the line. howver, realism as
dogma IS 100% wrong, even if it works sometimes, because it shuts out all
the alternatives.
> As for an Idealistic approach to Kosovo and Milosovic, pointing flowers
isn't
> going to do anymore than pointing guns. It sounds nice but sorry.
why? why why why? is it really that impossible to believe that people
might not be terrible at the core?
ultimately, i reject the idea of having ideas implanted in my head. i will
not accept realism as doctrine, and i will not believe that there is no
possible chance for humankind. i believe that realism creates wars. maybe
it solves wars, too, but it forces escalation, and it is NOT infallible.
and since realism requires nuclear deterrence and since realism is not
infallible, if it does fail...that's it, ladies and gentlemen. nuclear
deterrence means that a nuclear 'war' won't stay small. it has to
escalate, or deterrence fails. so that's it. you're dead, i'm dead, my
family is dead, everyone...gone gone gone.
peace love friendship caring
all gone
forever
sorry. but i don't want to play that game
charles
Robert
> most
> > been founded on? Idealism.
>
> a meshing of terms. idealism may have been a political philosophy or some
> such thing that wilsonian politics were based on, but this is hardly the
> idealism which i speak of. i'm not simply saying the united states should
> be idealistic in choosing its politics, i'm advocating a doctrine of
> post-realism. that is not just a simple idealistic perception.
Ok, so what form of post-realism? How do we know which is best in any given
situation? We don't. Why? Because we can't read minds. Sure, the Russians
just sent a warship to the Med. and we HOPE to GOD they are just flexing their
muscles. But what if they aren't? Even if they tell us everything is groovy
we have to make strategic decisions based on the idea that they might do
something ugly. We could assume they are playing nice and if we are wrong they
have a huge military advantage in a nasty conflict. We HAVE to assume the
worst is possible. THAT is Realism.
> > This is termed "Offensive Realism" It has been rejected by most
> historians.
> > Defensive Realism claims that the state expands its influence when it
> (its
> > leaders) perceive a threat from abroad. (Zakaria p.42) In other words,
> the
> > vacuum shifts slowly sometimes and quickly other times. When it is
> shifting
> > slowly or not at all, the state should not attempt to expand influence,
> as that
> > may trigger a vacuum struggle.
>
> okay. i think it would be obvious that expansionism is flawed. no one is
> arguing that point. however, i think the distinction between "offensive"
> and "defensive" realism is artificial. you're still interpreting there
> being a vacuum. you still believet that states should expand influence to
> deal with certain threats that exist 'out there.' More on that below.
>
First, I didn't make the distinction, it came from a political science book
dated in the 70s. Second, the vacuum analysis is based on simple historical
fact. It is a way of looking at threats (that do exist) based on potential.
Of course threats do really exist. We have seen surprise attacks in the past
even among "friends". Thus, which is safer, to assume everyone is nice or to
fear they may have a hidden agenda?
> > This doctrine is the basis of Nixon's policy
> > towards China. The Russians were attempting to expand their influence in
> SE
> > Asia. And since our policy to remove them was failing, we could attempt
> to
> > influence China positively which would cause the vacuum to equal out.
>
> i'll admit i've focused less on the inner workings of the cold war
> diplomacy than you have, so maybe i just don't understand this. i don't
> see how this is not at the exact heart of international relations theory.
> remember jim george's fifth "pillar" of IR theory:
>
> "Fifth, while there are (societal) cooperative tendencies evident within
> the state system (e.g., regime behavior), these should not be understood as
> fundamental systemic characteristics."
>
> the idea being that a balance of power doctrine, the idea of trying to
> weigh things out to even the vacuum is exactly what is being criticized in
> Discourses of Global Politics.
Yeah...you said that already...now why is it wrong? Above, I am defining a
specific policy example of Realism in which serious advantages were garnered.
Possibly the end of the cold war began in this act. Had Nixon played it
differently, the Russians would surely have attempted more expansion. (As it
was, they had been in Poland, Hungary, all the satellite states, and most of SE
Asia). Were these threats real? Yes, at least in that they were expanding
there already. Did they affect the US directly? With Regard to SE Asia the
answer is no...so rather than increasing troops to Vietnam (like the previous
three presidents) he removed the troops and attempted a power shift which ended
further expansion in the region without using US military power. The Russians
didn't expand in Asia because China's power had risen in the region due to
Nixon's actions. Check the history of Korea, Mongolia and the Xishu Islands
after this event for further evidence. The Russians began butting heads with
the Chinese all over the region. That is power politics.
>
> well, first of all, i think it's funny that so intelligent a person and
> someone so well read on this issue would believe that for a single instant.
> do you honestly believe the united states was embroiled in vietnam out of
> pure altruism for the vietnamese people?
No of course not. My point exactly. Idealism was the basis of flawed policy.
It was not Realism...Realism would ignore the region until our interests were
at stake. (or play nonmilitary politics to oppose the expansion) It was a war
of ideology... as you say between communism and capitalism. But it was sold on
idealistic grounds to the American people. As I said, Kennedy had made a
promise to oppose the bad guys wherever they were no matter the cost. He
redefined the national interest as defending all freedom anywhere (while
redefining freedom to mean noncommunist). Fighting against all communists
everywhere is an idealistic perception rather than a Realist position. We
defined communist as evil. That allowed us to fight it. Realism opposes
making any moral judgement about other nations. Policy is amoral. They are
struggling to maintain or expand their existence and we are doing the same. We
use various means to do that. That's it. The world is a big chess board.
Vietnam would have been merely a pawn.
Additionally, one interesting Realist interpretation of Vietnam was that we
fought on the side of the French to encourage them to join NATO. They had
opposed it if German troops were involved (logically, I suppose). Once that
was accomplished, we headed out. In the long term, that might have been in our
interests...perhaps, Kennedy was a Realist in Idealists clothing. Suffice it
to say that if that were the case, I would have no knowledge of it and the
decision to go to Nam would thus need to be reconsidered under those
circumstances.
> He wrote a blank
> > check for idealism. Of course, in policy terms, the cold warriors
> relabeled
> > aggressors based on ideology rather than actions. Authoritarian bastards
> were
> > fine as long as they weren't Communist. This goes back to redefining the
> enemy
> > mentioned above. That part has nothing to do with realism vs idealism.
> But
> > once it is done, the issue can be couched in idealistic terms ("we have
> to stop
> > the communists who are evil") or realism terms (Domino effect).
>
> no no no. i think you're misconceiving what post-realism is. that's
> mostly my fault for allowing it to simply be labelled 'idealism.'
> post-realism would not play the game that you're playing above. i would
> say, 'love is the answer' and that fighting a war in vietnam is
> structurally flawed. my point is that both examples you list above are the
> same. they are merely differing facets of IR theory.
OK...so how do you get the Russians to play along? Or the French? How about
the North Vietnamese Army? ARVN? You don't. They just choose to do the
same...great except as we have seen, they might not...in fact they might laugh
at us and invade our friends...especially our friends with lots of resources.
> > Clearly, a
> > Realistic policy in SE Asia would be to say, gee that sucks, here is some
> > economic and/or military aid, we hope everything works out for you. And
> if the
> > Reds started knocking on our door (or the door of relevant allies) we
> would
> > fight.
>
> realistic v. realism. realism has never been inherently focused on being
> realistic. in fact, given that it demonizes by nature, it often loses
> touch with reality.
Since Realism looks at other states as amoral players on a world stage, this
seems a little odd. If you mean that they demonize other states because they
assume that other states might not be friendly...then I say it is better to be
prepared for the worst and be wrong than not to be prepared at all and be
wrong.
<CLIP>
> in this case, a simple obvious truth would be "fighting is bad, guns kill,
> and bombs suck."
I agree. But dying without a fight is worse.
> > I know it stinks to say, "this country is important to our defense
> > while this one is not" but let's face it, what could Vietnam do for us
> > strategically? At the same time, we attempt to expand our influence in
> ways
> > that mitigate the expansion of the Soviets, especially within the theater
> (ie
> > China, Japan, Korea)
>
> strategy is always the name of the game. i don't think it stinks to make
> the above statement, i think it stinks that the rationale behind the above
> statement is never questioned.
Question all you want. The bottom line in my book is that I want to have a
state that looks out for the continued existence of its citizens first and
foremost. That is why people not unlike me created it.
> > > go ahead and add kosovo to that list.
> >
> > How is Kosovo from a Realist perspective? Aren't we doing it to save all
> the
> > people from ethnic cleansing and refugeeism?
>
> the motives might be sound, but the tactics are not. attempting to 'bomb
> someone into oblivion' is certainly realist.
Why? Idealists don't go to war? I would say that the motives are inherently
motivated by idealism. At least, they are justified in that manner, regardless
of our actual motives. Are our actual motives from a realist perspective? NO.
As I pointed out before, our allies and certainly our enemies don't want' us to
get involved. If we are playing power politics, we are doing it very poorly.
> besides, i think it's mockery
> to say that the US really has humanitarian interests at heart. it wants to
> maintain leadership and not look like a tiger with no teeth. the very real
> plight of the actual humans in kosovo is not particularly important in that
> game.
In fact, I think we are losing our credibility by our actions. Everyone knows
we could bomb them into oblivion. What do we have to prove? By acting in ways
not important to our national interest we look like a world "bully" rather than
a state with legitimate interests. I grant you that Clinton may be trying his
hand at a power move, but a bad power move shouldn't be used to discredit the
idea.
> that's all pretty much explained above. it goes like this
> me: "cars are structurally bad things. the mechanism of engines, tires,
> windows, bucket seats, transmissions, etc. is a utterly bad thing"
> you: "audis are better than fords and chevys"
Nice analogy, did you learn that at Kritik school? I'm showing you with (in my
opinion) great examples, why cars can be good. Sure...they might dehumanize us
and all, but any alternative means we all walk. I'm not trying to separate
into neo-realist mentality at all. I am using the basic fundamental classical
Realism position. Any derivation from that has been ignored up to this point.
I use only the same assumptions that you stated in your definition of IR theory
plus the basic belief that states are amoral actors.
> > > realism DOES NOT WORK. you ask for an alternative. i say:
> > > 1. even if there is no other ideology, that does not make this right.
> you
> > > fail to understand that sitting on ours asses IS an alternative. 'not
> > > bombing' is an action. that IS an alternative
> >
> > Your right about inaction being an alternative. Ain't it a shame that
> people
> > are more worried about a civil war in a remote part of the world than
> about
> > long term strategic alliances?
>
> no. it's a shame people are worried about strategic alliances in the first
> place.
Your right. Let's disarm all our weapons and tell everyone that we are going
to ignore any conflict anywhere in the world. We might last awhile, only
because every country that is interested in killing us (for various reasons)
would assume it was a trick...that is, they would assume a Realist position
that we are still interested in maintaining our state.
> > Of course, if Realism means constantly
> > expanding power at any cost then it won't work. But Realism is not
> > isolationist or expansionist. It seeks to decide on strategic rather
> than on
> > idealistic terms where and when to act.
>
> EXACTLY. and my (as well as my authors') argument is that that ideology is
> the center of the problem. it is a self/other dichotomy. it is a focus on
> security, rather than life and love. it is the definition of a
> constructionist value framework. that's bad.
You have failed to demonstrate this to me. I can show you real world examples
as well as good reasoning why states will continue to use a strategic mindset.
Why is that a bad thing?
> if we build relationships that are inherently created ONLY in the absence
> of feelings and emotions, we are not creating relationships among people,
> we are creating relationships among automatons.
Our relations are among states...yeah they don't have feelings. But the people
running them do. I say, you have to build relations with states to maintain
the relations between people.
>
> > Secondly,
> > look back to your definition of Realism and note that it is specific to
> Foreign
> > Affairs. Domestic actions regarding civil rights etc. are outside of its
> > scope. By all means, our domestic situation is nothing like the
> international
> > arena of politics and warfare. We can and should assume an idealistic
> approach
> > to fixing our own problems internally. But when we are dealing with
> nations,
> > whose intentions are unknown, we should hope for the best and prepare for
> the
> > worst.
>
> that's just false.
>
> "Second, the international arena is is the site of endemic anarchy and is
> fundamentally different from the domestic one (accordingly, its theory and
> practice must be understood in fundamentally different terms)."
Yeah...exactly. International arena is different than the domestic one. In
other words, I say, be a Realist when you are dealing with other nations and be
as idealistic as you want about your domestic situation.
> in debate terms, this is what is called a 'link turn.'
>
> realism posits that there is such a thing as FOREIGN and DOMESTIC policy,
> that these are seperate and involve seperate things. that is the
> definition of binary oppositions. that's no good. and that's the key to
> understanding this argument.
Heh, nice try. Your evidence above says they are distinct fields and thus the
theories about them ought to be different. Not that the binary difference
between them is a false dichotomy. I'm telling you, Realism is great for
foreign policy and idealism is great domestically. I show you why that is.
(For a reminder, foreign affairs involve state actors with unknown intentions,
while domestic policy involves equal democratic actors whose intentions ought
to be evaluated equally)
> > I contend that the fall of the Cold War was completed by two or three
> > of the biggest Realists ever known.
>
> i contend that the cold war was ended by a chain of events that no one in
> the world truly expected. if you go back and read the literature of the
> 1980s, you'll find some very interesting things. not one, NOT ONE, of the
> realists even mentioned the possibility of the collapse of the soviet
> union. it was simply unthinkable. realism does not allow for such things
> to happen. only post-realists came to the conclusion that it was even a
> possibility. that is simply a historical fact.
After I stopped laughing I began thinking of the Reagan "evil empire" speech in
1982. He specifically discusses a Soviet Union with fundamentally different
ideas from [1982]. And again in 1986, he begins to discuss a partnership among
equals (regarding nuclear negotiations.) Further, I recall reading a
disadvantage from my Junior year in HS about the hard-liners removing
Gorbachev...and reading Yeltsin turns, which claimed a free revolution. These
were all written by strategic analysts like those at CATO and Heritage. The
fact is, Realists act as if the worst is possible and hope for the best. All
power plays involve motivating other forces towards your own ends. Reagan
treated the Russians as potential villains because (well they had been) but
also, so that he could play a strong hand and force movement in favorable
directions. Eventually, as he began to be successful, he softened his stance
as an incentive for more favorable movement. It is a clear and obviously
successful strategy. If you would like, I can talk about Nixon making
statements about Russia during Detente?
>
> you may be right, nixon, reagan, and bush may have contributed to the end
> of the cold war, but they did not do it through realism. it is simply
> impossible. realism as a doctrine would not allow the cold war to end.
> that's all there is to it.
I think this is adequately covered above. Realism (in truth) would see the end
of the cold war as an advantage strategically.
>
> > > 3. here's a thought. there's a country in europe (a cookie to the
> first
> > > person who knows which country) that has repeatedly ignored overatures
> for
> > > admission to NATO. it has no military, per se. it simply maintains a
> > > force for the sole purpose of defending itself. anyone messes with
> them is
> > > going to get his ass kicked, but if you don't screw with them, they're
> the
> > > nicest people in the world. it CAN happen. it's not easy, but that
> > > doesn't mean it's not worth trying.
> >
> > I hope you aren't talking about Switzerland. It doesn't need much of a
> > military. Who could invade it? One or two guy with rifles can keep
> anyone
> > from coming into through the passes in the mountains.
>
> okay, partly true but you get the point. switzerland is probably more
> 'strategic' than most places, but it's not quite so unconquerable as that.
> the idea still holds true, nations can defend themselves without beginning
> a war-state that turns defense into offense.
That Switzerland is not prone to attack has nothing to do with their form of
government, their military strength, or their philosophy of defense. They are
not a strategic interest, except that they form a nice barrier. By contrast,
Belgium has nearly the same philosophy of non-alliance, yet they are the first
to be invaded (historically for thousands of years, the Swiss have been
virtually ignored except by Hannibal and then only for passage, while Belgium
has been hit hundred of times). Explain that please?
> > > 4. from a critical perspective, there are dozens, hundreds of
> > > alternatives. post-modernism is filled with differing perspectives and
> new
> > > possibilities. a new dialogue, a new understanding of the world, a
> step
> > > away from a focus on humanistic evalutions. destroying the self/other
> > > dichotomy. taking the binary oppositions inherent in language
> (especially
> > > realist language) and flipping them on their heads. all are possible.
> > > only our minds and our hearts seperate us from those possibilities.
> >
> > Yeah, hundreds...which one is correct?
>
> the idea of there being a 'correct' doctrine is wrong. nothing is that
> simple. that's exactly the point.
Great, I'll get a doctrine magic eight ball to tell me which one to use and
when. Also, you still don't tell me why other countries will follow suit.
> > Also, how do we get others to accept
> > these? Fiat?
>
> of course not. we can't MAKE other people do what we want them to do.
> that's what realism entails. it sets up a value system and beats other
> people up if they disagree with that value system. i'm saying we should
> step beyond that.
So if they don't change and we do...what happens then? If you are saying
everyone in the world ought to play nice and be friends...well, cool. But
until you can show me it could happen, I will go with the next best thing which
is to assume that others might be out for our goodies.
> > As a nation with significant resources, who deals with others
> > regularly, we have to accept the fact that at times, crazy people come to
> > power, someone gets a bright idea or whatever and suddenly we are at or
> near
> > war.
>
> bill clinton, george bush, ronald reagan, harry truman, etc. etc. etc.
> yup. 'crazy' people do that. they start wars. however, simply attacking
> them cuz they attacked somone with no brighter idea than realism doesn't
> fix problems.
Fine, they are bad guys too. How do we stop it by altering our foreign policy
methods?
<clipped stuff about bilingualism>
--english and french. you now have a possibility of
> solving this problem.
>
> okay, so suppose you know 300 language. you now have a plethora of options
> should you encounter a crisis.
>
> that's really all that scenario planning is. people sit down BEFORE
> problems arise and think about different things that could be done to solve
> those problems. there is no artificial sense of urgency or need to
> immediately bomb to alleviate immediate problems.
Yeah, we do that. I mean we have a CIA ya know? We try to anticipate problems
and solve them behind the scenes when it's possible. Realism allows for
multiple options. In fact, by removing the military option except when
national interest is at stake, we encourage multiple approaches to problem
solving.
>
> listen. billy pilgrim has come unstuck in time. realism is NOT 100% evil.
> it is not the root of all problems, and is not bad in every situation. it
> may, in fact, be necessary somewhere along the line. howver, realism as
> dogma IS 100% wrong, even if it works sometimes, because it shuts out all
> the alternatives.
What alternatives does it shut out? As I mentioned, it encourages nonmilitary
options to prevent conflict because conflict can cause power shifts which might
eventually necessitate military options.
> > As for an Idealistic approach to Kosovo and Milosovic, pointing flowers
> isn't
> > going to do anymore than pointing guns. It sounds nice but sorry.
>
> why? why why why? is it really that impossible to believe that people
> might not be terrible at the core?
Milosovic might be great, Hitler might have been great but 1) History does not
bear that out. 2) If they start to be not so great we have to be prepared.
> ultimately, i reject the idea of having ideas implanted in my head. i will
> not accept realism as doctrine, and i will not believe that there is no
> possible chance for humankind. i believe that realism creates wars. maybe
> it solves wars, too, but it forces escalation, and it is NOT infallible.
Cool. Never said it was...just better than any alternatives.
> and since realism requires nuclear deterrence and since realism is not
> infallible, if it does fail...that's it, ladies and gentlemen. nuclear
> deterrence means that a nuclear 'war' won't stay small. it has to
> escalate, or deterrence fails. so that's it. you're dead, i'm dead, my
> family is dead, everyone...gone gone gone.
1) why does it require nuclear deterrence. (especially since Machiavelli used
it) 2) Even if that is true, how would deterrence go away under any alternative
(with solvency) 3) Even if it does go away, does all nuclear weaponry go away
too? if not, wouldn't your statement be equally true. 4) if you are wrong and
deterrence is keeping us safe then what? At least now we live in a security
blanket of deterrence, even if it is fearful and forced upon both sides.
> peace love friendship caring
>
> all gone
>
> forever
Your breakin' my heart.
> sorry. but i don't want to play that game
Thank god that others are willing.
Rob
SNbkwm
>fear they may have a hidden agenda?
I think you're getting most of our approaches to idealism mixed up. I think
many of us like idealism, not only because in the long run it will keep us
safer, but because it insures that we will never have the blood of innocents on
us. That's just my outlook though. I don't truly claim to speak for anyone
else.
Matt Singer (a.k.a. "Rabid Badger")
Bronc Debate
http://www.warbarge.com/BroncDebate/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This has been a public service announcement.