In the first half of this column Orson Scott Card springboards from Brent Scowcroft's recent criticisms of Iraq to say some things that get to the whole point in my mind.
What is more, "realism" does not work. It cannot work, because the equations of power-balancing are fully readable by our enemies and opponents and rivals. When they know that we will go this far and no farther, we become predictable to them.
And when we are predictable, then our enemies are free to act as they wish within the safe, "realistic" boundaries we have laid out for them.
Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and the citizens of that empire knew that he was right. George W. Bush declared that even Muslim nations have a responsibility to provide freedom and basic human rights to their own people, and the citizens of those countries also know he is right.
It takes longer for a rational ideological policy to show its effects; but the effects are better and last longer.
So ... why did Scowcroft speak out against our present foreign policy?
Not because he has any realistic chance of improving anything, even by his standards of "improvement." He merely provides fuel for the opponents of this administration.
But if they prevail in the next election, will their policies accomplish more and better things than our present ones? Will they be more realistic? Does Scowcroft think that the isolationism and appeasement and token self-defense policies of a Clinton administration are better than what we have now?
Perhaps so. And perhaps he'll get his way -- certainly Hillary, the likely Democratic candidate, is, if anything, more anti-defense and pro-appeasement than Bill ever was.
But under the Clintons, our military strength was gutted, our readiness brought to its lowest ebb since the Depression. If that were to happen again, then what kind of "realistic" foreign policy could America hope to pursue? Without military might and the disposition to use it in a good cause, the only thing we can realistically do about anything in the world is wring our hands and send diplomats around.
You know, like the U.N.
What we have right now is the only realistic sort of foreign policy. When you take action, you will inevitably take some wrong actions among the right ones -- such is human nature, and no government in history has ever been mistake-free.
One has only to look at the greatest statesman of the twentieth century, Winston Churchill, and see some of his crack-brained schemes, to see exactly what I mean.
But despite his errors, he did lead Britain, and the allies, to save the world from fascism. Because he was doing something.
The "realistic" guys are the ones who nearly handed the world to Hitler, gift-wrapped.
Yes.
The rest of the column is about the Miers nomination and the lack of "moderation" in American politics.
UPDATE 11/8/05
DJ looks at the second half of Card's column.
Comments