Everyone is trying to be the next Kennan, and they aren't. Wright's article did nothing for me, especially the unjustified faith in International Organizations--the bit where he states that they will be essential or else we risk the sky falling (nod to Rumsfeld). Not very impressed--some nice nuggets in there, but most of it isn't terribly new.

I think there needs to be a new paradigm after watching Rumsfeld and co pound square pegs into round holes in Iraq for the last few years. Maybe it should be called Cludgeism, but basically it says we should use whatever tools are at hand to pound together whatever solution gets us a step farther, no matter how at odds it may be with previous sentiment or idealogy (though not morality). For instance, as little faith as I have in the UN or international institutions, the idea of putting peacekeepers into a DMZ type zone in southern Lebanon has promise. Is it foolproof and flawness? Heck no. But it might get us a step better than we are now. And maybe the left can accept that Israel is pounding on Hezbollah for the moment as a guardedly possitive thing. They may despise violence and unilateralism, but considering it is being used agaisnt a fascist-violent unalateralist organization maybe its for the best, at least for the moment.
The Israelis were taking this method when they decided on their disengagement/ignore the Palestinians plan. And at the moment it looks pretty bleak, but at least different things are happening instead of the same old stupid ones. Im tired of looking at the long term angles. Maybe we should just pound together whatever stopgap measures seem to have potential and see what happens. After all these decades of the best laid plans, just seeing actual motion instead of talk would be kind of nice.

Your comment about implementation is well-taken, but as long as "progressive realism" remains in the realm of rhetorical doctrine, how different is it really from the administration's rhetoric? The only argmunentative difference I can see is empowering the WTO to arbitrate environmental and labor issues. It's a real difference, but it's not exactly paradigm-shifting stuff.

On free-trade, the administration has talked the talk (remember the FTAA?) but implementation has been pretty shoddy. The centrist free-trade consensus that passed NAFTA has collapsed, and I don't see how any administration is going to change that.

As for progressive realism, how does it square making the WTO a bulwark of free trade if it's going to let western labor unions call the shots on international labor regulation?

On international insitutions, what substantial difference would "progressive realism" entail? Would a progressive internationalist administration sign onto the ICC? Would it re-enter the ABM treaty? Would it do anything differently than the current administraion, or would it be doing the precise same things, except for some feel-good Bill Clinton-style blather to soothe European egos? There's something to be said for that sort of thing since words are cheap, but again, that's not paradigm shifting stuff.

The Darfur statement is telling. There's a plausible long-term Amerirca's-best-interest justification for "doing something" about Darfur, but if that is the standard, you run into the same question posed to the neocons about invading Iraq (which, for reference, I did and continue to support). Sure, Iraqis will be better off without Saddam, but how many other countries would benefit without their current regime? What about North Korea? The answer had to be grounded in realism- Iraq is a strategic country, and transformation there could have a ripple effect throughout the region. That was the argument- Iraq would give the biggest bang for the buck (this does seem silly now, but let's let that pass). "Doing something" about Darfur comes to the same point- why Darfur? Why not Somalia? or North Korea? "Doing something" will inevitably entail physical force, which inevitably means that the US will have to do the heavy lifting. There are perfectly sound moral reasons for stopping genocide, but let's not pretend it's an urgent item on the list of American interests, unless you define America's interest stricly in terms of moral purity. That clearly can't be what is meant by "progressive realism". Morality rightly should be a major concern in foeign policy, but a doctrine that pretends that acting morally is always in our best interests has no business using the term "realism". You may not like this, but remember that "realism" circa 2003 had gotten itself a bad reputation for a reason.

All this business about trying to formulate a viable foreign policy alternative to neoconservatism stinks of humbug. It's trying to keep the precise same ideas that animate current, but giving it a new name so people like Fukayama can associate themselves with the ideas but not their implementation.

Any new policy has to a have a constituency. The current policy may bankrupt the US in the long run. Many of the supporters of the current unilateral/ militarism are making record profits, so they will not want to change direction.
Who makes a buck off multilateral, humanitarian and cautious balancing? Me thinks not enough entities make enough money directly enough for this policy to have any chance of implementation in the near to medium terrm. Maybe after the first run on the dollar or other such crisis occurs will enough power sources take steps to change the current failed policy.

I agree with your assessment that you might want to evaluate a strategy, like neoconservatism, based on how it would be implemented by an incompetent government or transnational governance strategy.

However, it seems to miss an important aspect of the decision context, which is the range (i.e. distribution) of outcomes of a *competent* implementation. If there were a professional association of nation-builders, certified in best practices, how would they do on a case like, say, Iraq. I.e. patient presents with symptoms of badly deteriorated infrastructure, endemic corruption, weak courts, sectarian tensions, and infiltration of foreign jihadis. What treatment options are feasible, what are their chances of success, what complications are likely to ensue?

Seems to me that building nations has got to be at least as hard as doing corporate mergers or software development which tend to have fairly substantial failure rates even when implemented by competent individuals.

Appeals for multilateral action usually fail not because they demand too much sacrifice of a nation's freedom of action, but because they demand enough to be a serious inconvenience without going far enough to confer a serious benefit. If Wright is arguing for multilateral action, he needs to make the benefit more clear.

Why don't they just ask Sweden, Norway and Finland for a new foreign policy. They should just hire all Scandinavian diplomats and let them go to work. If the Scandinavians had as much money and power to work with as the americans do, the world would be a much better place in no time. Instead of farming their foreign policy out to Israel, they should have given it to the Scandinavians.

Why don't they just ask Sweden, Norway and "Finland for a new foreign policy. They should just hire all Scandinavian diplomats and let them go to work. If the Scandinavians had as much money and power to work with as the americans do, the world would be a much better place in no time. Instead of farming their foreign policy out to Israel, they should have given it to the Scandinavians."

Please tell me this is a parody.

Why don't they just ask Sweden, Norway and "Finland for a new foreign policy. They should just hire all Scandinavian diplomats and let them go to work. If the Scandinavians had as much money and power to work with as the americans do, the world would be a much better place in no time. Instead of farming their foreign policy out to Israel, they should have given it to the Scandinavians."

Please tell me this is a parody.

Progressive realism begins with a cardinal doctrine of traditional realism: the purpose of American foreign policy is to serve American interests.

Oh, look, it's Realism with something vaguely nice-sounding tacked on the front to distract the starry-eyed ones.

Of course, the inherent problem with this idea is that 'Progressives' do not think the purpose of US foreign policy is to serve American interests. Insofar as foreign policy is concerned, 'Progressives' seem to think American interests should be subordinate to everyone else's, especially if the UN General Assembly votes on it.

bah.

ps to Andrew: if it's a parody I've been waiting for the punchline for months- he may be serious.

"f course, the inherent problem with this idea is that 'Progressives' do not think the purpose of US foreign policy is to serve American interests. Insofar as foreign policy is concerned, 'Progressives' seem to think American interests should be subordinate to everyone else's, especially if the UN General Assembly votes on it."

Ever heard of "enlightened self interest"? Tocqueville thought it was what made America great. Please try to distinguish between it and how you inaccurately describe "progressive" beliefs.

"ps to Andrew: if it's a parody I've been waiting for the punchline for months- he may be serious."

Folks, I don't think its a parody. I think its accurate, and I think its an accurate characterization of the world today. Those Scandanavian diplomats happen to all be in the UN building, and they don't happen to all be from Scandanavia, but it is how the world works.

The part he forgot is about 2 million US farmboys keeping the peace worldwide for those Scandanavian blatherers in New York. Without them, Scandanavian diplomats would have a lot less success.

"Are new foreign policy thinkers reacting against Bush's neoconservative ideas, or the incompetency with which those ideas were implemented? This is the biggest strike against neoconservatism -- that when executued badly, the outcomes border on the catastrophic.
"

Please tell me THIS is a parody. One of the benefits of academics and thinkers is that they are able to take the long view (at least that's the theory). I sense that DD has never read a paragraph about the Civil War or World War II (or any other historical period that 'bordered on the catastrophic'). The present war in Iraq probably ranks right up there with the Spanish-American War in terms of 'catastrophy' (remember, those dark days in American history when the republic itself was at stake?). Perhaps with gas at $3 a gallon, and Superman doing not so well at the box office, truly catastrophic times are upon us. But I doubt it.
Steve

Steve:

Um -- how many billions of dollars did the Spanish American war cost (in adjusted dollars). To plump things up, throw in the later Filipno insurgency. When you go and compare

I thought it was the left that only judged wars in terms of body counts. Sheesh.

Dont overlook the cost of oil in your estimates! Surely some of the run up in oil from $30 to $80 can be attributed to the splendid little war known as Operation Iraqi freedom. I have seen estimates as much as $40/ barrel security premium.

AM-
Ok, I accept. Iraq is comparable to the Spanish American War plus the Phillippine Insurrection.
Were those 'catastrophic' times? Ask 100 Americans, and you will find maybe 30 that have heard of the SA War, maybe 5 that have heard of the PI. I'd warrant that they, ahem, don't qualify as 'catastrophes.' Who was the Secretary of Defense during either?
Sorry, Bush Derangement Syndrome, and Rumsfeld Derangement Syndrome, don't justify silly opinions.

Steve

President Bush’s belated diplomatic involvement in Darfur suggests growing enlightenment

The diplomatic involvement in Darfur was not belated; it came at exactly the right time.

, but sluggish ad hoc multilateralism isn’t enough.

The multilateral response to Darfur was neither sluggish nor ad hoc. This person really doesn't know a lot about Darfur.

We need multilateral structures capable of decisively forceful intervention and nation building

well, they might as well say "we need a pony". Nation building is not possible. Can't be done. No foreign policy which doesn't recognise this has a good claim to the term "realist".