Robert Kaplan: The Return of Realpolitik
I’m not quite sure what to make of the Robert Kaplan piece in today’s Washington Post, an argument for normality rather than democracy in the Middle East:
…[T]he fact that a state is despotic does not necessarily make it immoral. That is the essential fact of the Middle East that those intent on enforcing democracy abroad forget.
For the average person who just wants to walk the streets without being brutalized or blown up by criminal gangs, a despotic state that can protect him is more moral and far more useful than a democratic one that cannot.
I would be anxious to see this benign despotism in practice…as our forefathers wisely knew, the subordination of the individual to the state inevitably leads to abuses. Patrick Henry’s rallying cry was not, “Give me the comfort of a sheltering state so that my life may be boring and predictable and subject to the needs of the collective or give me death!”
Kaplan continues:
Globalization and other dynamic forces will continue to rid the world of dictatorships. Political change is nothing we need to force upon people; it’s something that will happen anyway. What we have to work toward — for which peoples with historical experiences different from ours will be grateful — is not democracy but normality. Stabilizing newly democratic regimes, and easing the development path of undemocratic ones, should be the goal for our military and diplomatic establishments. The more cautious we are in a world already in the throes of tumultuous upheaval, the more we’ll achieve.
What a bunch of claptrap from such a well-regarded thinker!
What dynamic forces removed Hitler and Stalin? Would political change have come to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union without the constant military and economic pressure of the West? And what would have happened in Iraq, without an invasion?
Yes, Saddam would have eventually died – and Iraqis would then be under the thumb of his sadistic (and now deceased) sons. Nor would Lebanon have thrown off its Syrian overlords, nor Libya voluntarily given up its WMD program, without the presence of large numbers of U.S. troops in the area and the example of the Iraq elections.
How’s that do-nothing-and-wait-for-globalization approach working in North Korea? In Iran? There is a very clear intellectual backlash against the principles of the Bush Doctrine that smells more than a bit opportunistic. It’s no mistake that so many who are rediscovering the joys of Kissingerian realpolitik are the same ones who were so anxious to take on the burden of transforming the Middle East before the going got rough.
I would be a fool to pretend that things in Iraq are going well – but I would be an even bigger fool to jettison my principles when obstacles confront me…
Don’t forget dear uncle Fidel – only 90 miles away, and still repressing his citizens 24/7.
Too bad the Bay of Pigs was so poorly conceived and carried out – the sentiments were worthwhile.
I think that everyone, including Kaplan, is missing the ultimate realpolitik point – how do democratic/despotic developments impact the interests of the USA. I, for one, care much less about Iraqi freedom and security than I do about my own. Call me selfish, but I expect my government, whom I helped elect, to serve my interests and not go crusading around the world for purely moral reasons. If regime change in Iraq serves US interests (and I believe it did), then I am for it. If democracy in Iraq threatens to give the government to a Hamas-like enemy of the US (which it may well do) then I am against it. US policy should be about US interests, pure and simple.
djg, of course those caveats have been addressed by Bush and others many times. We cannot know with precision what the future will be but we know the status quo of the past served us ill. The advancement of liberty in the world IS, of course, in the long term interest of the US, in that it makes us less alone; the interests of free Iraqis coincide with those of free Americans far more than when under Saddam’s heel.
dmac, amen. If Kennedy had launched those damn planes who knows where we would be now?
Indeed. Realpolitik may be an occasionally useful strategy as part of a broader, more idealistic focus (e.g. backing “our SOBs” in the Cold War or in the GWoT today), but simply endorsing the status quo in the hope that we can sit on our hands and wait for a miracle to occur seems a recipe for the exact predicament we’re in now in the Middle East. This is the problem I have with the argument that Saddam may have been a despot, but he kept a lid on an explosive situation, so we should have left him in power. The problem is Saddam is nearly 70 and wasn’t going to live forever anyway, and brutal dictatorships aren’t known for their peaceful transitions. The sectarian strife in Iraq now was bound to happen soon anyway.
In fact, I’d argue even in the service of the more idealistic goal, realpolitik is dangerous because it becomes so darn easy to get into the habit of backing our SOBs and ignoring it when they’re really no better than their SOBs.
Whoa Nelly! Isn’t Realpolitik the mechanism that put Saddam in power in the first place?
And what the heck does this mean: “easing the development path of undemocratic ones”? The personal enrichment, emboldenment, and entrenchment of the despot is the result of that strategy, unless the invasion of Iraq and deposing of Saddam are categorized as “easing”. But I suspect that is not what Kaplan has in mind…
This nonsense belongs in the same trash heap occupied by the failed stategies of appeasement and containment.
Hmmm… Saddam put himself in power. He was a useful counterweight to Iran when Iran was the primary threat in the region. After Saddam overreached himself by invading Kuwait, it was the Euro interests in the “coalition” that made it impossible to remove him, although realpolitik and basic strategy dictate that wounded foes should be finished off (c.f. Bismarck’s treatment of Loius-Philippe). That was the price of multilateralism – the Europeans had no interest in seeing US gain power in the region – and so GHWB bowed to pressure and left Saddam in place. It was bad strategy – he was too weak then to counter Iran but not so weak that he could not aid our enemies. This error does not invalidate my point above or Kaplan’s, that friendly regimes are more important to our interests than merely democratic ones. Let us not forget that Hitler too was democratically elected. As an aside it seems to me that GWOT has missed an opportunity to finally jettison Israel given the Hamas election – will of the people and all that. Not surprising, given that the administration seems to place idealism above strategy.
The great irony of Kaplan’s argument is that even while promoting democracy with one hand, the Bush administration has clearly been practicing could be called “neo-realpolitik” (or perhaps even “petro-realpolitik“) with the other. That is, he has no problem getting in bed with less-than-liberal-democratic “moderate” Muslim nations (*cough*Saudi Arabia*cough*), all for the sake of (1) maintaining a support base for U.S. diplomatic and military operations in the region, and of course (2) keeping that light sweet crude coming in (relatively) cheaply. Indeed, Bush’s handling of the Dubai Ports World flap reeks to high heaven of neo-realpolitik.
To finally jettison Israel, djg? Explain, if you don’t mind…
Joshua,
Getting in bedwith Saudi? Is that why there are two armored divisions within 2 hours of the Iraq-Saudi border now? I posit (with solid backing from Stratfor) that the primary geo-political rationale for inading Iraq in the first place was the ability to apply pressure via credible threat to the Saudi regime that was doing nothing about Qaida, as well as to Iran and Syria.
Mark,
Israel was always at best an expensive ally to the US. It was originally formed under Stalin’s blessing with the hopes that it would become a Soviet satellite. The Soviets quickly realized, however, that they could get more mileage out of the region by backing Arab anti-colonial movements and exploiting the existence of Israel as a lever to establish close relationships with Arab powers. They needed this because Iran and Turkey were both in the US camp. Israel and the US found themselves thrust in each others’ arms by having a common enemy in the USSR. Since the Wall came down, Israel has been more of a liability than a useful ally. It continues to fuel Arab anti-US sentiment, even as realpolitik dictates that you ally yourself with the most useful power – in this case the Arabs and their oil. Clinton’s administration attempted to distance the US from Israel, but it did not go far enough at the time and was distracted by other issues. Now GWB had a perfect excuse to do the same (democratic elections, etc), and decided instead to position himself as an enemy of Hamas, and by extension of the Arab nationalists, thus prolonging the struggle against them.
“position himself as an enemy of Hamas,”
I position myself as an enemy of Hamas and a friend of Israel. Anyone not a fan of blowing up babies in cribs should do the same.
“Jettison” the only functioning nation in the area? What benefit is supposed to accrue from that? The original itteration made me want to puke. Your explication hasn’t helped matters.
Regarding Israel, djg, I have to dissent from your view, as well. An ally shouldn’t be abandoned because she is costly – on this issue, I am strongly on the side of Israel, as, I think, are most Americans, intuitively, if not explicitly…
This is the difference between the way we conduct our personal affairs vs. international business. In realpolitik there are no friends, only temporary allies. They are allies as long as they are useful and are traded for more useful allies as necessity dictates. The current behavior of the Europeans is a case in point. Americans are often blindsided when erstwhile allies turn on them, because we in our naivete had considered them to be friends, which they never were.
Israel is no friend of the US but is rather a smart player in realpolitik. It had no compunction about spying on the US, or sinking US warships, when it was in its interest. Now it needs us more than we need it. A smart statesman weighs benefits against costs and acts accordingly rather than relying on the false comforts of emotion.
djg wrote:
Meanwhile, the Saudis spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year building and run mosques and madrasas around the world – including on America’s own soil – that spread anti-Western hate and promote jihad, and Bush barely bats an eye. Why on earth would he permit the Saudis to directly undermine the war effort in this manner? The only explanation I can see is he badly needs something else out of the Saudis, something mighty important.
The same goes for the UAE, and why Bush is so hell-bent on getting the ports deal done in the face of so much domestic opposition – he needs a big favor out of Dubai too. Something like diplomatic support from both countries for military action against Iran (if it comes to that), and their efforts to bring the rest of the Middle East on board. Oh yeah, and also both countries’ continued reliability in
feeding America’s addiction to oilsupplying enough petroleum to meet American demands for the foreseeable future.To jettison Israel is a complete non – starter for most of us, regardless of their current situation. We are inexorably linked – to abandon them would signal to our Arab enemies that we have finally turned the other cheek in the Mideast, and no longer have any loyalties to anyone other than ourselves. Realpolitik, indeed.