Thoughts on Realism

Saw Kissenger on one of the Fox shows arguing that security and stability should be the priority of all wise statesmen. He was asked about Iraq, and just applied his old formula. I contend that Realism made more sense during the Cold War than it makes today. During the Cold War, where the Soviets were eager to exploit insecurity and instability in places like Greece, Turkey, Korea, and Iran from the very begining, to their development of a policy of fomenting communist revolution throughout the third world, it was critical to keep anti-communist governments stable and secure, lest the state be lost like China, Cuba, or Mozambique.

Today, there is no Soviet Union pushing communist insurgencies. While it can be argued that Islamofascism is a threat in Jordan, Moracco, and Turkey, some realism might be called for. This is why the Russians were given a pass in Chechnya, and why Pakistan's government was brought back into the fold. But the more potent force in the long term is democracy. So Kissenger is wrong to prioritize security and stability in all times and places. Some instability is neccesary to bring about democracy. Whether its American intervention in Iraq or covert support for democrats in Iran, a certain amount of instability can yield much greater dividends. We need to have a set of conflicting values, embracing democracy and stability. Where democracy isn't likely, and where the democracies of the world are unlikely to stay involved for the long term, like Sudan, then stability and security means stopping the genocide. Where it is possible and/or where the democracies will commit for the long term, the status quo is a problem.