Customer Reviews

Ethical Realism: A Vision for America's Role in the World

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

George W. Bush has made a hash of American foreign policy, but alternative visions seem in short supply. Anatol Lieven and John Hulsman offer a glimmer of hope, proposing a philosophy of "ethical realism."

They suggest several sensible preconditions for a successful foreign policy, preconditions completely lacking in the administration's philosophy of neoconservative imperialism. One is prudence, which was sadly absent at almost every stage of the Iraq disaster.

Another requirement is "national humility, and the tolerance and patience that stem from it." We haven't seen much of that over the last five years. The authors also cite the willingness to study and learn.

Moreover, write Lieven and Hulsman, "neither in statecraft nor in common sense can good intentions be a valid excuse if--as in the decision to go to war in Iraq--they are accompanied by gross recklessness, carelessness, and indifference to the range of possible consequences." Finally, the authors suggest patriotism, in contrast to mindless, destructive nationalism.

These principles are good starting point for any foreign policy. Ethical Realism is a refreshing read, an inciteful analysis that simultaneously critiques the mess that passes for American foreign policy today and offers a solid alternative. Anyone hoping for a real foreign policy debate should buy this book.

Messrs. Hulsman and Lieven have delivered a learned and principled gem for readers seeking an alternative to the reigning U.S. foreign policy of throwing hundreds of lives and billions of dollars down a wishing well vaguely dedicated to democracy. Ethical Realism is a lantern out of the morass, a book that offers a readable, sensible and practical vision to combat the international ills of today and shape tomorrow's solutions.

The authors present a foreign policy prescription grounded in history and ethics rather than ego or vendetta. The book's strength comes from its completeness, giving lessons from the past with applications for the future and a commonsense theory accompanied by realistic action. Clear writing highlights their clear thinking and the straightforward style is a refreshing change from numerous policy tomes that cloak threadbare ideas in overdressed prose.

Hulsman and Lieven themselves differ in their political affiliations and open the book by tracing the history of the Truman-Eisenhower moment when opposing parties shared a foreign policy that led to the containment of the Soviet Union and ultimately, the defeat of Communism and America's rise to the world's dominant power. The authors cogently discuss the pitfalls of the preventive war, the likes of which have led to an American death toll in Iraq rivaling that of 9/11 while the ostensible raison de guerre, Osama bin Laden, is watching Love Boat reruns in Balukastan. They also explore the so-called thinking - from neoconservatives on the right and liberal hawks on the left - that paved the way into Iraq without mapping a way out. The authors' bipartisan voice and broad-reaching scholarship will appeal to Democrats, Republicans, and those fed up with both parties.

Bad decisions have flowed from good intentions. As America tries to remain the city on the hill, Hulsman and Lieven draw attention to its foundations that risk erosion along with its diplomatic and political capital. One of the book's important achievements is the much-needed and overdue restoration of an ethical character to realism, empowering readers who believe trying to save the world is immoral when it costs the country its soldiers, wealth and allies. Realism has often been cut from the debate of what is the "right" thing to do on the suspicion its proponents are self-interested cynics, thereby ceding decisions on foreign engagement to utopians who write better poetry than history. Hulsman and Lieven revisit the teachings of Hans Morgenthau, Reinhold Niebuhr, and others to revive realism and imbue it with the admirable virtues of prudence, patriotism, responsibility, study, and humility.

Ethical Realism cautions against the imperial aspirations that can yield raw power in the short term, but is won at the expense of America's values, institutions and legacy. It calls instead for a Great Capitalist Peace, for America to retain, not squander, its military and economic strength and to serve as an ordering, rather than a bullying, force in the world.

The authors apply their blueprint to current and future challenges, proposing clear and solid plans for dealing with Iran, Russia, China, Iraq and the Middle East. They stretch their solutions to much of the rest of the world through the concept of Developmental Realism, which promotes judicious aid and trade liberalization as cornerstones of global prosperity and peace.

Hulsman and Lieven have written an engaging work that spins history, philosophy, current events, and spirited prose into a hopeful - and yet practical -- vision for America. One hopes that the next time Washington forces gather to plot our nation's future course that the country has the good fortune to have Hulsman and Lieven at the table. Or at best, at 14 ounces, it's light enough to make the President's reading list.

Should we let facts get in the way of our daydreams?

This is a question posed by Anatol Lieven and John Hulsman early in this book. And, of course, their answer is yes. Not surprisingly, I agree. Let's see if they are willing to do that themselves.

Well, Iraq is a big mess right now. And the authors do say that some folks overrated our attempts to introduce democracy there. That's fair. They also say that in addition to criticism, we need effective counterproposals. That's fair as well.

There's a good discussion of the Marshall Plan. I agree that this plan was both moral and realistic.

And there is a discussion of the Bush administration record in reacting to the events of 9/11/2001. Is our security better now? Actually, not much. We have also increased our budget and undermined (via the Iraq war) our "ability to intervene or even threaten anywhere else." These are good points.

What about "pre-emptive" war. As the authors explain, Harry Truman said that all such wars prevent is peace. But perhaps that quote is overrated. There may indeed be a time and place where pre-emptive wars make sense. On the other hand, I agree with the authors that its recent use has been of dubious merit at best.

Could America become a garrison state? Could we lose our values? Yes. That is one of the threats we face. And the authors explain that there still are threats of direct attacks on the United States, and that our most important statecraft task is to reduce that risk. I think that is an exaggeration, as appeasement is a risk as well, and we need to be careful about engaging in it just to try to reduce the risk of an immediate attack.

The authors want peace in the Levant. And they have some recommendations on a peace settlement. While a peace settlement such as the one they suggest might be fine if it were agreed to and implemented, I think they ought to take an opportunity right here to let facts get in the way of their daydreams.

"Regional concert" in Iraq seems to me to have even more of the same problem. Yes, we may have a duty to make matters better, not worse. But I see no reason to think that this "concert" will help.

Anyway, the book is okay, but not really special.

I bought this book after seeing the authors in a panel discussion on CSPAN. I was impressed with their insights and spirited defense of their point of view, and the book adds depth and detail to their thesis. It's unusual for two people from opposite poles of the political spectrum to come together on policy - but they do here, and we can learn a lot from them. This book should provoke a much-needed debate on recent U.S. foreign policy failures - and how we can avoid making the same mistakes in the future.

I was very impressed with this book. It took a liberal and conservative expert and found those concepts they could agree on. They present a review of the foreign policies that succeded and those that failed since WWII. They then present a view of how we should proceed in the future and concepts we should keep in mind as we try to determine how to react to events that occur. Although I did not agree with everything they said, I found their reasoning sound and it gave me a lot to think about. I would reccomend this book to anyone who is interested in foreign policy, especially the candidated for president.

Besides the WMD fiasco, the United States entered the war with Iraq holding several misconceptions. Perhaps the biggest was that the people of Iraq would be ready to assume the benefits and the duties of democracy. Instead we have opened up old wounds that even now are increasing the level of violence. It's clear that our preconceptions were wrong.

In this book, the authors examine the old ideas and have created a new strategic vision: 'ethical realism.' They point out that states all have the right to protect their own citizens and have their own national interests and further that these interests have to be defined by the contries themselves, not by Washington.

Their overall answer is for an increase in capitalism in the world, not worrying about the type of government that other countries have. They then have hopes that democracy would follow. This is not unlike the direction that China seems to be taking.

I see two or three points that the authors seem to have ignored.

NGO's. The views presented in the book are designed to work with the Westphalian system of states. Al Qaeda is not a state, yet seems to be holding an increasing smount of power in the real world.

Basic fundamental hatreds. The Sunni and Shiite split in the Muslim faith seems to have at least the potential to deal a death blow to states that otherwise may be trying to move forward.

Evil States. The authors seem to have forgotten that Germany and Japan tried at one time to conquer the whole. How do you handle this, especially if they do indeed have WMD's?

This is an important book because it is neither too left or too right. I think it is a little incomplete, but the discussion has to start somewhere.

This is an important book for a clear historical overview of the driving strategic philosophy which drove American Presidents from Truman and Eisenhower to Reagan and Bush I. That the "containment policy", so adroitly developed by George Kennan, and sustained and augmented by Truman and Eisenhower, was a success, is quite an understatement.

The authors well note that, the tremendous patience and wisdom which drove it, was not perfectly executed, and there were missteps, but that, by and large, variants of this policy, were quite successful in confronting aggressive Communism without the resort to thermonuclear war. The authors, themselves from opposite political camps, note that that to achieve success, presidents were often required to defeat political extremists, both from the left, and from the right...even, and I might add, especially, from their own parties......for almost 50 years.

There is an interesting chapter on Prudence, with reference to Augustine. Prudence, that first of the Cardinal Virtues of practical and perfectable right decision making, is correctly understood by these authors, as the central dictum of the "wisdom of the west", drawn as it is, from the first philosophical sources of the Greek, Roman and the Judeo-Christian traditions.

The prudent nation, and that nation's statesmen, they assert, know how the world is objectively, not how they might wish to it be, and not out of the blinkers of an ideology, but out of a nitty-gritty, clear eyed, and perfectably objective understanding of reality. This is the prudence of a George Kennan, Truman, and Eisenhower in the contemplation of Stalin.

Out of this five fingered grasp, as enlightened by a clear awareness of our spiritual values, they contend, comes policy rooted in ethical realism. This is the process and policy that these authors wish for America today....and it can be felt in each page of this book.

In fact, Their message for today is that Kennan's "ethical realism" can and should be applied to our own now post-communist world. The examples they give are thought provoking....but more than this, they give Americans hope to once again re-discover the true diplomatic path...that old path of enlightened ethical realism....for the good of our country, and for the good of our world.

This book is an essential primer on what ought to be our foreign policy outlook for the Age of Obama. Well-written, brief, and prescriptive.

Anatol Lieven and John Hulsman have written a text, albeit a short 180 fairly small pages, that challenges much of the irrational, impracticable, and immoral tenants of American foreign policies. Of course, the first segment of the book introduces the concept of ethical realism. Wow!!! Two guys in Washington who write a book that is void of most political extremist beliefs. The authors, from polar opposites of the political spectrum, join together to introduce a new, viable, inspiring view of American foreign policy that rightfully places America as the responsible leader / super power it once was seen by the rest of the world just 65 years ago. The second half of the book examines the relationship between the United States and a selection of other states, Iran, Russia, China. You know, when I read a good book, I am saddened to turn the last page. I felt such disappointment reaching the conclusion in this book. Here we have two insightful writers offering exciting approaches and, before I knew it, they concluded. There were about 10 references that were cited frequently throughout the book - not much, but very well done! The logic, grammar, spelling were noteworthy for their absence of errors. I really could see and appreciate the careful logic the authors used in writing this book. I would have liked to see them describe ethical realism from a more global / state department perspective. I would have liked to see them describe ethical realism in our approaching countries such as Mexico, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia ... I found this to be one of the top 20 books that I've read in the last few years. It is well worth the purchase price, new, and, certainly, used.

Much of realism's advocates in the realm of political science has always been quick to point out the nature of modern realism as denying any ethical or moral consideration in the world of power politics. Indeed the defensive and offensive realist models promulgated by Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer work in a world assumed to have little impact by the personalities of the leaders, but rather, that on a systemic level, nations will behave in a fixed manner. (It's interesting to note, that Mearsheimer's latest work seems to contradict that theory...however that's a discussion for another piece.)

Yet the roots of Morgenthau's classical realism, rather than detaching state behavior from humanity, is remarkable precisely because it attempts to grapple with how best to manage state behavior and reactions based upon what he sees as the ultimate human frailty: the lust for power. Yet simply characterizing Morgenthau's "Politics Among Nations" as a nihilistic portrayal of humanity as being undeniably anchored to power considerations also does much disrespect to a scholar who, while accepting that realism was the state of the world, continued to consider and contrast other theories to perhaps create a better one.

The important contribution made by Lieven and Hulsman in this work (and implicit in the message of Steve Walt in "Taming American Power") is the recognition that the heady idealism of the post-Cold War era has been warped in the post-post Cold War era into a a method of denying responsibility for ones actions because their intentions are good.

Hulsman (a former Neo-Conservative) and Lieven do a wonderful job of pointing out the weakness of the neo-conservative and liberal imperialist positions, where the INTENT to do good (either through hegemony or through the "indispensible nation") is in itself insufficient to warrant the name of ethics or morality.

Instead, what makes this work so important is that it returns the CONSEQUENCES of actions back into the debate. While there is a certain recognition that morality is not always absolute, the additional recognition that as much evil has been done in the NAME of good through irresponsible or ill thought out actions, and that acting in that fashion, particularly for a Super Power is unethical is vital recognition in establishing a more just world.

If I had to pick one part of this book to disagree with, it is the vaguerity of the specific policy suggestions. The philosophical background and historical background is good, but much of the latter half does not provide anything novel in the way of solutions, certainly nothing that hasn't been stated by the giants in the realist camp of International Relations, with perhaps the difference being in the emphasis on morality (or what Hulsman and Lieven refer to the "Great Capitalist Peace") over the national interests of the United States.

While I recommend this book to people, I do so with caveats. I suggest that people also read Lieven's "America: Right or Wrong" as well as Steven M. Walt's "Taming American Power" for a better and more nuanced view of both the background of modern American political nationalism and what Lieven uses as a basis for his arguments in this book, as well as for a better grounding of the conceptualization of realism as it applies to modern international politics.