Realism, Idealism, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Islamic World
Realism, Idealism, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Islamic World
Why Democratic Realpolitik is Essential
by Dr. Robert J. Bunker
Download the full article: Realism, Idealism, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Islamic World
Enough comment and critical debate has been generated by the essay Why We Should Support Democratic Revolution in the Islamic World to warrant further elaboration on the themes it contains and why support of the despotic status quo in the Islamic World is not only morally unacceptable but, more importantly for many of the Small Wars Journal readership, no longer rational from the perspective of realpolitik and purely selfish U.S. interests at home and abroad. The latter concern shall be addressed first since those who are presently students of insurgency and foreign policy tend to focus on realism— how things really are— over idealism—how things can or should be. The elements of national power and morality should be complimentary to one another in U.S. foreign policy but for many reasons, including our increasing loss of political and economic dominance, the balance has overwhelmingly shifted to the primacy of retaining power, ultimately coercive military capability, coupled with that of promoting corporate profit and the American standard of living.
The prevailing foreign policy lesson learned over the last half-century is that a friendly despot in control is worth far more than a potential democratic leader (representative of a free and open society) waiting to arise because of the high political risks involved. The potentials for a belligerent Ayatollah (representative of a hostile theocracy) replacing an allied Shah are simply too great to accept. This is representative of the basic cost-benefit foreign policy calculation that now dominates. We have been conditioned to participate in a long running zero-sum game. In this game, the U.S. people and its government benefit as do our autocratic client states, including the foreign despots, and elites and cronies who surround them. The fact that we damn the peoples who live under these friendly despotic regimes to a form of governance devoid of our basic freedoms and political rights is viewed as an acceptable form of collateral damage. Many would say these peoples—such as the Egyptians— are better off under such ‘fatherly and benign rulers’ as Hosni Mubarak. Far better him and his cronies than the monster hiding in the closet—the Muslim Brotherhood— who would not only make life worse for the common Egyptian but would immediately renounce peace with Israel and would also put the U.S. in its gunsights. From a status quo U.S. foreign policy perspective, things have pretty much been figured out—U.S. interests are best served by this method of cost-benefit analysis.
Download the full article: Realism, Idealism, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Islamic World
Dr. Robert J. Bunker is a frequent contributor to Small Wars Journal. He has over 200 publications including Non-State Threats and Future Wars (editor); Networks, Terrorism and Global Insurgency (editor); Criminal-States and Criminal-Soldiers (editor); and Narcos Over the Border (editor). He can be reached at [email protected].
