Neoconservatism dead, "new" realism?

[BeBMan]

Just read an article (no link, was in German) that said the Iraq mess is pretty much responsible for the decline, even "death" of neoconservatism and that for the near future we'll see a revival of realist or neorealist approaches in US foreign policy?

Anyone who cares and wishes to share his views on that?

[Elok]

Hey, why d'you have a Christmas avatar already? Or did you just never change it from last year?

On-topic, what constitutes a "realist" approach? Come to think of it, has anyone ever come up with a meaningful definition of "neoconservative?"

[Cort Haus]

neoconservative: born-again militarist who believes that they can make the world a peaceful and prosperous place by the use of extreme violence.

[Elok]

So...a neorealist would believe in advancing the realist cause by invading Modern Art museums, or bombing Madrid to punish Spain for producing Picasso?

[snoopy369]

A realist would believe that nations are going to piss on each other no matter who is running them or how, so we might as well just keep a large army but avoid implying we're going to attack anyone, unless one of our useful allies is in trouble.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Elok
Hey, why d'you have a Christmas avatar already? Or did you just never change it from last year?

Never changed it. I'm a lazy bastard

On-topic, what constitutes a "realist" approach? Come to think of it, has anyone ever come up with a meaningful definition of "neoconservative?"

The article was mainly about foreign policy, so understood neocons mainly as those which favor active "democracy-export", even by military means. I'm sure you can find other points when looking for a more specific definition, but the article was not going that far.

Foreign policy wise realism wouldn't care that much about idealistic stuff like democratization (although neocons would argue that being in the US national interests), but more about what works best for keeping/improving the position of the US within the international system, if it promotes worldwide democracy or not is then secondary.

[LordShiva]

Realists: "All countries do whatever is in their best interest using whatever means at their disposal, so we should do the same."

Neoconservatinves: "The 'internal character' of a country matters - there are good guys and bad guys. It is in our best interest to help the good guys and to turn the bad guys into good guys, with force if necessary."

[Odin]

Originally posted by Elok

On-topic, what constitutes a "realist" approach? Come to think of it, has anyone ever come up with a meaningful definition of "neoconservative?"

Realist = Kissinger, Bismark, etc. Realpolitik basically

[realpolitic]

Now I understand why we need neocons, to make sure the "realists" no longer have enough of a military to "realistically" enslave peole.

[LordShiva]

Whatever you say, "realpolitic."

[Sandman]

To paraphrase Tolkien, Neoconservatives are a magic box out of which anything can spring.

[Thedrin]

Once the decision to invade was made it was the execution, not the ideology, which was the primary cause of this fine mess*. The neoconservatives won't look at Iraq as an arguement against their political philosophy but I suspect they might want Rumsfield's head on a platter.

* I'm not a neoconservative.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Thedrin


* I'm not a neoconservative.

But you play one on television.

[Arrian]

Re: Neoconservatism dead, "new" realism?

Originally posted by BeBro
Just read an article (no link, was in German) that said the Iraq mess is pretty much responsible for the decline, even "death" of neoconservatism and that for the near future we'll see a revival of realist or neorealist approaches in US foreign policy?

Anyone who cares and wishes to share his views on that?

At least for a while.

Lord of the Mark expressed some concern that the backlash against "neocons" would go too far and harm efforts to promote democracy (not just via direct use of US military force, but other means as well). I'm not as concerned, personally, but I see his point. He can express his concerns better than I can, obviously...

-Arrian

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Thedrin
Once the decision to invade was made it was the execution, not the ideology, which was the primary cause of this fine mess*.

Hm, that's pretty much debatable because it says the execution could have gone much (and decisively) better. But it's very difficult to say what strategy exactly could have led to a better outcome and if the original goal to bring democracy (that is comparable to western standards) wasn't out of reach from the start (something many critics said). If a better strategy was known - wouldn't they have implemented it?