Link Banana

When considering the under-noticed anniversary of Burma’s 1988 uprising, The Economist’s Asia.view column hits a sensible point I’d never considered:

No, the reason the revolution failed was simple: the army was prepared to kill as many people as it took to thwart it.

So long as a state apparatus is strong and remains cohesive, it’s hard to imagine how any citizen uprising can end authoritarianism.

In last week’s Newsweek column — I’m rather out-of-date where offline reading is concerned — Fareed Zakaria argues that all the presidential candidates, both Republicans and Democrats, are having the wrong discussion about Iraq. He also offer a way forward:

The most intelligent strategy for the United States now is a combined political and military one. If we are to engage in peacekeeping, the operation needs to be internationally recognized, sanctioned and supported—as it was in Bosnia. We should call an international conference on Iraq and get the support of other countries—crucially Iraq’s neighbors—for this new mission. There should then be a joint international push to get the Iraqis to make the kinds of political deals that will turn the ceasefires into lasting peace. Over the next year if the violence continues to decline, countries like India, Poland and South Africa could be persuaded to relieve American troops. With sustained and focused efforts, over time, American forces could draw down substantially. The mission could then become what it was always billed as, a genuinely international effort to assist the Iraqi people in founding a new nation.

I’ve been waiting for a counterpoint to this for some time, and Salon has finally offered it. In a piece that’s more about realism than Kristol himself, Stephen Walt argues that what America (and thus the NY Times Op-Ed page) needs is some hard-nosed realists.

Hiring Kristol did not bring an “opposing view” to the Times’ Op-Ed page, of course, because columnist David Brooks already represents the same worldview that Kristol does. Nor does the Times’ roster of liberal pundits provide a full complement of “opposing views.” Most liberal commentators share the neocons’ belief that it is America’s right and responsibility to exercise “global leadership,” even when that role involves the aggressive use of American military power and constant interference in other countries’ affairs. The Times’ Thomas Friedman was an energetic supporter of the Iraq war until it went south, and Nicholas Kristof is a passionate advocate of U.S. intervention in Darfur. Columnists like Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich have been sharply critical of the neoconservatives’ worst follies, but both proceed from the familiar liberal internationalism that has characterized the American foreign policy establishment for many years.

What’s missing in America’s mainstream media is the voice of realism. As the label implies, realists think foreign policy should be based on the world as it really is, rather than what we might like it to be. Realists see international politics as an inherently competitive realm where states constantly compete for advantage and where security is often precarious. But realists understand that being overly alarmist and aggressive can get states into just as much trouble as being excessively trusting or complacent. …