Realism, taken to its logical end, is non-interventionist.

I have a new piece up over at the Daily Caller about why I believe a realist foreign policy is in fact heavily non-interventionist, despite what many advocates of our current wars in the Middle East might say.

…when followed to its logical end, the realist school of internationalist relations which so many use to justify the American presence all over the world is in fact one of the greatest arguments against our current foreign policy.  I do not argue against America’s wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan because I think that we would all just get along if these wars ceased to happen.  I argue against these wars because I come from a perspective that sees the people we are fighting as human beings with the same base motivations as myself, and when these people see their livelihood threatened, they take the best course of action that they can find, which unfortunately often involves siding with whatever group holds the most regional power.

…This is what true realism is: it is the understanding that every human being is motivated by an instinctive desire to do what is best for themselves and those close to them.  It is an understanding that at the individual level, people do not view themselves as choosing between the good and the evil, but rather between the beneficial and the costly.  Realism is not sitting in front of a Risk board and attempting to forecast the actions of international powers.  Realism demands an explanation into the “why” of how foreign policy operates, rather than simply accepting base assumptions about massive groups of human beings and then skipping straight to the “what.”

Check out the rest of the piece here.

Published in

Post a comment