8/6/2019 Thayer 2010

1/5

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by:

On: 19 May 2011

Access details: Access Details: Free Access

Publisher Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-

41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

American Foreign Policy InterestsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713768419

The Continued Relevance of Realism in the Age of Obama: Plus aChange, Plus C'est La Mm e ChoseBradley A. Thayer

Online publication date: 28 January 2010

To cite this Article Thayer, Bradley A.(2010) 'The Continued Relevance of Realism in the Age of Obama: Plus a Change,Plus C'est La Mme Chose', American Foreign Policy Interests, 32: 1, 1 4

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10803920903542725URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10803920903542725

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713768419http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10803920903542725http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10803920903542725http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713768419

8/6/2019 Thayer 2010

2/5

The Continued Relevance of Realism in the

Age of Obama: Plus Ca Change, Plus CestLa Meme Chose

Bradley A. Thayer

Abstract

If this prediction of the foreign policy of

the Obama administration proves to be true,President Obama will be judged to be an exemp-

lar of realism. So will the sustainability of

realism in the formulation and practice of

American foreign policymaking where it has

informed and driven policy for more than two

hundred years.

A Realist Foreign Policy

President Barack Obama is no different.

Every new president comes to office pledging

to break with the past and to conduct inter-

national politics with principle and morality.

Each administration claims that it will bring

new ideas to international politics and will

not only break with the failed policies of its pre-

decessor but will also lead the United States

and the world to a new, brighter future while

solving the problems the country faces and

reducing the dangers. Such idealism is not lim-ited to presidents. Any review of foreign policy

magazines will show that there is no shortage

of brighter paths and new theories of inter-

national politics touting the flatness of the

world in the era of globalization or why inter-

national politics must go green to save the

earth from disaster.

At every inaugural and among the punditry

pontificating in the colorful magazines, it

seems no one is a realist as in the past. It seems

that we have no steely eyed Cardinal Richelieuor Prince Metternich, Hans Morgenthau or

George Kennan who served as the unapologetic

advocate of Machtpolitik, Realpolitik, or raison

detat and placed the interests and security of

his country before all.

At least no politician or commentator is a

realist in his rhetoric. Yet once the glow and

honeyed words of the inauguration are past

and the administration actually has to advance

Americas interests, the mask slips in deeds if

not in rhetoric, and realism is reborn. In fact,it never went away.

What Is Realism?

Realism is the oldest and most successful

theory of international politics. Its core argu-

ments are universally understood despite

cultural or temporal differences. Julius Caesar

was a good realist, as was Hans Morgenthau

nineteen hundred years later. Thucydideswas, as is Hu Jintao. Thomas Jefferson was,

as is Nicholas Sarkozy. Realisms verities are

timeless, equally understood, and applied by

good Athenian democrats and loathsome

Stalinist dictators.

Fundamentally, there are four verities of

realism. First, power is the essential component

American Foreign Policy Interests, 32: 14, 2010

Copyright # 2010 NCAFP

ISSN: 1080-3920 print=1533-2128 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10803920903542725

8/6/2019 Thayer 2010

3/5

of international politics, and states have to seek

power to survive. If they fail to acquire and keep

sufficient power, their security will be at risk.

They may be conquered like Kuwait in 1990 or

become Finlandized, reduced to the status of a

semisovereign state, the pawn of a great power.To avoid such an unhappy fate, they must arm

themselves and secure alliances with other states.

Realists see the search for power as

inherent in human nature, and so realist expec-

tations about behavior are just as relevant to

life in the corporate boardroom, in institutions

like the European Union or the College of

Cardinals or the Mafia as they are to inter-

national politics.

Second, a states national interests are

primary and must be advanced in all circum-stances and by all means at the states disposal,

through economic, military, and diplomatic

means, by both hard and soft power. It is regret-

table that moral and legal principles are only

accepted to the extent that they coincide with

the states interests. In rhetoric, lofty principles

are always acknowledged, but in deeds, they

may only be indicated if they advance the

interests of the state. The statesmans first

loyalty is to the interests of his state.

Third, a state can depend on or trust noother states, and cooperation, such as alliances,

is always contingentit will last as long as

interests coincide. Lord Palmerston described

his responsibilities with impeccable realist

logic: Britain has no permanent friends, only

permanent interests. Examples abound. The

mujahedeen were the allies of the United States

during the Soviet war in Afghanistan but

became Americas enemies when they played

host to Al Qaeda. The Soviet Union was an ally

during World War II and the bitterest of foesduring the cold war. China was an ally during

World War II and then a foe after the Commu-

nists came to power. It was once again an ally

after Nixons visit and is now a rising, evermore

formidable enemy destined to become a peer

competitor of the United States that may

indeed supplant it as the worlds hegemon.

Fourth, realists explain international

politics as it is, governed by the pursuit of

power and self-interest and by a lack of trust

that makes cooperation contingent rather than

as we would wish it to be, a world of trust,

cooperation, and altruism. Realists see theworld without illusion, which often contributes

to suspicion and pessimism. As archetypical

realist Oswald Spengler wrote: Optimism is

for cowards. The world as we want it to be is

the realm of the idealist, not the realist.

Idealism is the realm of Norman Angell. In

1910, he explained why European countries

were too economically interdependent to go to

war. It is the realm of the innumerable theor-

ists who explained why the United States

should cooperate with the Soviet Union andnot confront it, why Washington should disarm

rather than engage in an arms race with

Moscow as a form of confrontation.

The Relevance of Realism

Today

In academic and policy circles, it is fashion-

able to criticize realism for a host of reasons. Itis irredeemably Machiavellian, or unprogres-

sive because of its advocacy of self-interested

behavior or because no cooperative solution is

provided to solve the major problems plaguing

the international community such as the

causes of war. Of course, although no theory

captures the totality of international politics,

realists often wear those charges as badges of

honor and respond: Precisely.

Despite those criticisms or the explicitly

antirealist rhetoric of statesmen, realism isas relevant today as it ever was. Obama is the

most leftist president America has elected and

one who came to office pledging to repudiate

the policies of his realist predecessor. He should

indeed be a tough case for realism.

Yet a tour of the horizon of major issues in

international politics reveals what the realist

2 Bradley A. Thayer

American Foreign Policy Interests

8/6/2019 Thayer 2010

4/5

suspects: Despite the rhetoric, the Obama

administration is realist. The first stop on the

tour is the nettlesome problem of Iran. Iran

wants nuclear weapons for good realist reasons.

Iran faces many threats, too many to address

solely with conventional arms, and has adeclining population, further weakening its

ability to deter opponents. Nuclear weapons

promise to keep a nuclear-armed Iran safe from

attack from the United States and Israel as

well as keep them out of Irans business. Simi-

larly, the Obama administration is attempting

to stop Irans nuclear weapons program for

good realist reasons. A nuclear-armed Iran will

be harder for the United States to coerce. Also,

it will be a threat to Washingtons interests and

to the U.S. military and allies in the importantPersian Gulf region and will serve as a poten-

tial proliferation conduit in the future,

sharing nuclear technology, fissile material,

and nuclear knowledge with other states or

terrorists.

At the same time, the Obama administra-

tion knows quite realistically that it cannot

stop Irans nuclear program because of its

advanced state, redundancy, and diversifi-

cation; its support from China and Russia;

and the risks of retaliation for any attackagainst Americas interests and the global econ-

omy. It is preparing for a nuclear-armed Iran

and is quietly adjusting alliances and U.S.

military force structure in the region.

The next significant issue is the Obama

administrations decision not to deploy

ground-based interceptors in Poland and a

powerful radar in the Czech Republic. It would

seem that this decision is completely at odds

with realism. However, when one examines

what Obama proposed instead, the weaponrywould actually be better for a confrontation

with Iran.

The Obama plan will deploy mobile

sea-based platforms in the eastern Mediterra-

nean and ground-based platforms in Europe,

including Turkey. This system will be augmen-

ted by an existing U.S. radar in Israel and one

to be deployed in the Caucasus. Although

Obamas rejection of the Bush administrations

policy has been derided by criticsmost

vociferously in Warsaw and PragueObamas

plan actually has great strengths, although

they are little reported. The Obama missiledefense system offers a greater likelihood that

missiles launched from Iran will be intercepted

in their boost phase, thus blowing up over Iran.

Accordingly, U.S. allies in the Middle East and

Europe should be encouraged by it. Far from

diminishing U.S. capabilities, the Obama plan

strengthens them against Iran.

Third, the Obama policies in Iraq are almost

exactly the same as those of President Bush.

Once in office, Obama had to reject the promise

of withdrawal made in the campaign. Instead, itis as if Bush had won a third term. Obama has

embraced the gradual and contingent with-

drawal that the Bush administration advanced.

Concerning Afghanistan, the Obama adminis-

tration is out-Bushing Bush. It is continuing

to back the government of Hamid Karzai while

surging forces into that country as it accelerates

covert action programs in Afghanistan and

Pakistan. Far from idealism, the Obama admin-

istration knows that the United States could

lose in Afghanistan and is taking steps toprevent such an outcome. Time will tell whether

the plans are successful, but the administration

recognizes what is at stake and is acting as any

good realist administration would.

Fourth, politics toward great powers such

as Russia and China have not changed. The

Obama administration views Moscow with a

healthy suspicion but recognizes, as the Bush

administration did, that it is an important ally

on key issuescombating terrorism, piracy,

dealing with North Korea, and many otherissuesdespite real divisions in interests

between the two countries. But the most impor-

tant shared interest they have is China. In

time, the growth of Chinese power will threaten

both the United States and Russia, and that

common threat should bring them into some

type of alliance, even if it is not named as

The Continued Relevance of Realism in the Age of Obama 3

American Foreign Policy Interests

8/6/2019 Thayer 2010

5/5

one. The decision to abandon the Bush adminis-

trations European missile site should be seen

in this light. The Obama administration wants

to signal that it is willing to address some Rus-

sian concerns, even at the expense of alienating

NATO members. Likewise, the tepid supportfor Georgia in its effort to join NATO is a

marked contrast to the Bush administrations

effort before the RussianGeorgian War of

August 2008 and should also be seen as an

effort to signal Russia that the United States

is willing to reduce support for allies in return

for advancing the shared interests of Moscow

and Washington.

With respect to China, although few com-

mentators notice, the Obama administration

is continuing the Bush administration policieson the major security issues in the Sino

American relationship. The United States

continues to sell arms to Taiwan and support,

de facto, a two-China policy. After World War

II, the French novelist Francois Mauriac wrote:

I love Germany so much that I am glad there

are two of them. Well, the same is true for

the United States. A divided China is a weaker

one, and observers should expect continued and

strong support for Taiwans efforts to defend

itself from Chinese coercion, even if Washing-ton does this sotto voce.

Unnoticed as well because of its gradual-

ism, the naval and air force presence of the

United States in the Western Pacific continues

to expand, although perhaps one step behind

the growth of Chinese capabilities. Increasingly

those capabilities explicitly target American

vulnerabilities. Moreover, the United States

has created a network of alliances in the coun-

tries bordering China. There is either an

American military presence in or close militarycooperation with Afghanistan, India, Japan,

Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and Vietnam. Although

confrontation in the SinoAmerican relation-

ship is not inevitable, the Obama administra-

tion continues the policies of the last three

American presidents in preparing for it. Do

not expect that to change, as Washingtons

interests in Asia have not.

The Bright Future ofRealism: Plus Ca Change,

Plus Cest La Meme Chose

Realisms future is a brilliant one as long as

statesmen have to worry about the security of

their state, labor to advance their countrys

interests, and find it important to conceal their

true intentions. Clausewitz argued that war

has its own grammar, understood by the mili-

tary but not its own logic, which is a form of

the political art and thus better understood by

politicians. The review of the major issues

confronting the United States today shows that

the Obama administration has its own gram-

mar, which we should expect will continue to

be often lofty and idealist, but its logic is realist.

Even in the age of Obama, realism is the right

tool for comprehending American foreign

and defense policy. Pity the Europeans and

Americans who thought that transatlantic

problems were Bushs fault and a new age

would dawn with Obamas election. They have

come to realize that the interests of countries,

not the personalities of their leaders, are pri-

mary. If you are ever in Vegas and have cause

to bet on theories of international relations,

put your money on realism.

About the Author

Dr. Bradley A. Thayer is a professor ofpolitical science at Baylor University. He is

the author or editor of five books, most recently

Debates in International Relations (2009). He

has served as a consultant to the Rand Corpor-

ation and the Department of Defense.

4 Bradley A. Thayer

American Foreign Policy Interests