aziz
-
10:42:17 am on June 26, 2008 | # | |
One definition of neoconservative foreign policy might be, that terrorists are assumed to be sane, and nation-states assumed to be mad as hatters.
The liberal foreign policy prescription would be to invert these assumptions and act accordingly.
-
Tag this post
Comments
Leave a Comment

razib 11:30 am on June 26, 2008 | #
those are realists too (latter).
Ali Eteraz 12:47 pm on June 26, 2008 | #
no.
neo-cons consider both irrational.
aziz 2:50 pm on June 26, 2008 | #
AE, I disagree - the entire rationale for the Iraq war was that the terrorists would have a rational response, that they are sane proponents of a certain worldview which must be fought on the merits. If we treat them like insane criminals, then dealing with them becomes a lot simpler.
In many ways, the sanity of terrorists is what leads to the idea that we can remake the middle east. They argue in a nutshell that teh existence of a democratic, liberal Iraq would utterly eradicate the jihadi mentality. That was the original PNAC argument for war (and saddam’s wmd were merely te marketing pretext). Obviously since jihadis arise in countries like the UK, the premise is fatally flawed.
Whenever you hear a neocon argue that terror cannot be treated like a law enforcement problem, the underlying message is this: jihadis can be deterred.
aziz 2:52 pm on June 26, 2008 | #
razib, i disagree with you as well. the essence of realpolitik is that a nation has concrete and rational self interests and that we can seek common ground oncertain issues. In fact the very MAD doctrine that got us through the Cold War was the ultimate expression of rationality. realists understand that everyone has goals and agendas and they try to chart a middle course - the critique of this approach being, of course, that certain principles (namely, liberal constitutionalism and human rights) are thrown out te window in the name of accomodation.