Response to "What is Progressive Realism" ["But the article was essentially about describing the differences between schools of thought while obviously giving evidence the author thought supported a different school than has predominated and was making a case for trying something different"]

Robert Wright in the 2nd paragraph makes "realist" a synonym for Kissinger's cynical "realpolitik", thus loading any "realist" with the baggage of Kissinger's policies in Vietnam, turning a blind eye to disaster in Indonesia, et al. A rather tawdry piece of smear and false equivalency. (To be clear, the level of human carnage in SE Asia and the expulsion of Commusts from Indonesia was huge - incomparable to the tolls we've seen in Mideast conflicts the last 20 years.)

But Wright pulls this off with a "Maybe McFaul had Kissinger in mind when he lamented the 'deaths and horrific repression' that past realists...." - or maybe McFaul didn't, and it's just Wright's fervent imagination leaping to smear by most distant association.

Wright leaves out McFaul's key sentence, "Realism is an ideology that produced millions of deaths & horrific repression over the centuries." - an expression that might include Mao's "to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs", efforts to "civilize" "backwards people" around the world, accommodate slavery in a new Constitution, Bismarck's approach to Europe & treaties, et al. Certainly not honed in on 1 particular Secretary of State from our Nixon years.

If this is Wright's "evidence" in "supporting a different school" (i.e. his version of "realists" before he trashes modern "progressive idealists", especially Biden appointees), he's off to a bad start. Note, the whole of McFaul's tweet:

It's obvious by paragraph #6 that the real target of this is to bash the choices of Blinken and Sullivan (and Obama in general) as blinkered idealists with blood on their hands. You'd think Neville Chamberlain would come up as such an idealist before 2 apparatchiks within a much more limited alliance, failed or not.
As this piece progresses, we'll see that it's not really introducing a new framework, but using a purported framework to beat the old dead horse with once again. Let's take this framework 1 by 1:

1) "Strategic humility" - Wright jumps to this, as if Obama had put boots on the ground first chance (something Putin did, by the way). Instead, he worked through EU & Arab alliances, as well as protecting civilian protesters with *NO FLIGHT ZONES* (the stratically humble winner of the Kosovo conflict and the maintainer of a peaceful status quo over Iraq during the 90's). And yes, he armed rebels, which is how we pushed the Russians out of Afghanistan *WITHOUT* confronting the $600 billion a year Soviet military's invasion directly.
Did arming rebels in Syria work? undoubtedly no. Was Russia's propping Syria up (vs Yeltsin's relative acquiescence in Kosovo) a big differentiator? Certainly. As was the more entrenched state of Assad II, and the fact that European powers are less committed to non-European conflicts. And as barbaric as Serbs & Croats were in the 90's, compared to ISIS & other actors *this time* they behaved oddly a bit better. e.g. they still tried to hide their atrocities, whereas in Syria & Iraq & Afghanistan, they liked announcing them.

"Still, the fact remains that the intervention produced much more death and suffering on all sides than ruthless suppression would have produced." - wow, that's a Kitty Genovese (debunked) framing all in itself. Actually it's partly dumb - the death and suffering was on the side of the Syrian people - European allies just had to deal with refugees, while Americans suffered not a whit, nor did Russians - they got a Mediterranean seaport out of it. Second, "humility" doesn't mean "inaction" - it means be careful & thoughtful exactly *BECAUSE* interventions aren't guaranteed to turn out well. And I can't think of a recent leader who exhibits caution and no-drama better than Obama, so what gives?

The part on Libya seems upset that "humility" worked *too* well - that the no-flight airspace and support for rebels over the barbaric military dictator Qaddafi effectively derailed his sordid plans, and while I do have qualms about NATO seeming to overstep the compromise of their UN agreement, I'd like to see those formulated with a bit more attention to pertinent detail including the rapidly changing situation on the ground - specifically what that means for an agreed, condoned support effort without going back for new permission. But nowhere do I see any perspective of the Arab Spring - where Tunisian revolts were successful, where Egyptian repression was bloody but through our help peacefully transferred to caretaker and then a Muslim-led government that turned out to be much worse and chaotic than Mubarak. But so was Pakistan and then Pakistan-Bangladesh once the British left. So is South Africa after Mandela replaced De Klerk, and then a bunch of uninspired self-serving idiots replaced Mandela. So is Belgian Congo after Belgium quit/got pushed out. Does "progressive realism" now mean keeping dictatorships and caretaker colonialists in place, the old patronizing infantilist recipe?

Whatever the case, the US didn't actively engage on the ground in Libya - they provided air & other support to local actors. But just as Milosevic largely kept a fractured Yugoslavian Balkans together, Qaddafi's brutal dictatorship kept ruthless splinter groups at bay, as did Hussein's strongarm control of Iraq, etc. - many of whom came out with his departure (presumably this would have happened with exile as well). So is the question whether we should have taken a *MORE ACTIVE ROLE* in Libya following Qaddafi's removal, rather than being shy & humble & distant? such as introducing EU-like laws & societal frameworks to guide a shattered already split nation into something more beneficial than factional chaos, providing peacekeeping forces? Maybe, maybe not - could be a bridge too far. But most Iraqis support pushing Israel into the sea - freedom doesn't equal good taste or wise choices by a long beleagoured populace. Caveat emptor.

2) Cognitive empathy - oh my, a long section on being empathetic towards Putin's wishes in strong-arming Ukraine. I mean, Chamberlain was empathetic towards Hitler and his needs, and produced a brilliant peace for his time. I'd suggest rather than cognitive empathy, an awareness of the rights of states & peoples, some acceptance of larger caretaker influence without giving into brute colonialism, and more attention to basic human rights & self-determination and whatever economic development & education & other progressivism can bring to the table.

I'm not sure what kind of "more orderly fashion" Wright sees Yanukovych being deposed with, but considering the corruption that his departure exposed, and that Yanukovych was actively under the patronage of a world superpower in directly working against the will of the people (joining the EU & the post-Soviet economy, not the NATO bit), it's hard to see why he wouldn't be treated as a traitor to non-Donbas Ukraine. Does "cognitive empathy" extend to the people of Ukraine themselves? Seems not. (Oddly, Wright then extrapolates to "Russia that justly meddled in the 2016 US election" - where I thought the official line was that "Russiagate" was a hoax made up by Democratic centrists & HIllary/Obama-lovers, and that some 300 pound kid on his mother's couch did it. Oh well, conflicting narratives, move on...)

But Wright doesn't end there. He quotes: "China is a big country, and other countries here are small countries. Think hard about that." I think we're aware of that, what with China installing factories in its Muslim concentration camps, and using its "Belt & Road" initiative to try to get those ill-gotten products to market. And China bashing down protesters in Hong Kong. And China pretending it owns all the Pacific off of SE Asia and building up its fleet & fake islands to bolster those excessive claims. 

But traditionally the US has pushed back against these excesses - even TPP was designed to bring *more* Pacific trading partners into the Asian mix, rather than the one dominated by China. Efforts to unpeg China's currency, to respect human rights, to respect intellectual property, lower pollution and greenhouse gasess, et al, have all been part of US diplomacy and economic policy, even as we work with China to produce much of the world's goods and services. It's obvious by now that we have limited abilities to tell China what to do - but it's important to keep trying to leverage what power & influence we have *for good*, not just for Ivanka's trademarks.

Wright doesn't manage to dig into issues re: sanctions and US policy very well. Our approach towards Cuba is entirely driven by Conservative Cubans voting Republican living in Florida - yes, I'd love to influence that, but "meanwhile, back on Planet Earth..." Syria's sanctions started from its treatment of its own citizens under Assad's father, and got locked in when Assad Jr. had the choice during the Arab Spring of whether to open up or "doubling down" on repression. He chose to latch onto the past & new friendship with Russia, who brought us the destruction of Chechnya, the separatism of Georgia (Abkhazia & South Ossetia) and Donbas, and the renewed repression of his own dissenters. With friends like these...

Venezuela sanctions are largely Maduro's meltdown after the death of the more capable and more admirable Chavez. Whether Chavez painted lipstick on a big, or truly did good things for his people, Maduro is inept, and let Venezuela's oil infrastructure collapse as the only real support for Chavez's social restructuring, and then largely playing a thug ruling by decree, and backed by the usual rogue states.

Wright triumphantly exclaims: "Realists, in contrast, ask a simple question: Remind me what vital American interest is served by inflicting misery on a small faraway country in hopes that something magical will eventually happen?" - ha ha ha. Remind me what progressive ideal is served by ignoring an oil-rich country's descent into insolvency and despotic undemocratic means as a way of propping up a respected leader's pathetic successor, while the population largely goes hungry? While not perfect, Latin America is pretty much better off and more democratic and more caring for its people than in the 1970's. Venezuela being a huge exception. Realistically speaking.

Iran is more complex, partly due to Israel's influence, partly due to our past behavior with Mossadegh - whatever worries about the communists were real or contrived, the realpolitik of backing the Shah's son who was somewhat forward looking, somewhat blind to social problems, and given to spying & torture by his Savak and then overthrown by a despotic fundamentalist mullah who committed more atrocities and brought Iran back to a medieval state. Our involvement with the Iran-Iraq War brings no accolades (though oddly we did supply Iran with weapons on the sly), and Iran's progress has been haphazard - partly progressive opening, partly populist & openly repressive, all with the continued oversight of the Mullahs. That Iran has continued its nuclear development on the sly, but is probably less capable at actually developing usable weapons than it pretends, continues to be food for Israeli & right-wing GOP paranoia, and frustration for those of us who'd like to see Iran warm up to say the EU and gradually thaw out of the Khomeini period. That's hardly "idealistic", and it doesn't rely on the fantasy of Putin's goodwill (ignoring Novichok poisonings & other tactics) or empathy towards his Iran ambitions.

3) Anti-Manichaeism - here we draw a line between technology used to promote democracy and technology used to bolster totalitarianism. Image recognition of dissenters on the street should worry us, though we also see technology helping identify criminal rioters from the Capitol occupation. China's ubertech used to imprison Uyghurs and stifle debate is a horror, but so is Facebook's misuse of stolen personal data to promote one candidate over another & giving a party a leg up over another, and otherwise massively invading people's privacy on a daily basis. There's much movement to trying to break up America's techno-monopolists - I've gone from agnostic to pro, though concerned greatly about actual details - but there's still a big difference between actively trying to imprison millions from an ethnic minority & religion, vs trying to make a buck and so running over cultural norms and regulations. This is not a call to allow the latter - it's a call to take the former more seriously, *while* addressing the latter. But since China's a "big country" with big influence, it will still be hard to do - unless we line up good-willed allies to invoke humanitarian future-tech ideals and guidelines. Oddly, this is also "realist", not just "idealist", as it acknowledges compromises needed to develop & enforce those guidelines, much as the UN, WTO & other international bodies are flawed coalitions of member states with different attitudes & intentions.

But what switch does Robert Wright come up with this time? Yes, another panic about a "Cold War" (slightly less drastic than invoking the usual "World War III" or "Nuclear War" whenever someone suggests that Russia shouldn't brazenly steal Crimea outside of world norms or limit Russia's aggressive & civilian-killing support in Syria). Because China can't possibly see the advantages of maintaining US outsourced manufacturing while limiting its mistreatment of its citizens? Are these the same people who said we shouldn't outsource because of poor working conditions in China, only to see standards of living rise hugely for most in China? "Realism" should deal with likelihoods and cause & effect, not just acceptance of the status quo and fear of moving past square one.

Let's look at the problems he mentions:  "Pandemics" - the world just fast-tracked 2 mRNA vaccines and another more traditional one, thanks to advances in technology these last 50 years, plus the greater cooperation of individual, often selfish states in looking for mutually beneficial solutions to a crisis. Yay multilateralism!!! Yay "league of democracies"!!! Weapons proliferation? the greatest impediment to weapons proliferation is the rise of more democratic countries that see rogue weapons as only undermining the peace & shared economy that's decreased extreme poverty from 30% in 1989 to ~8-9% in 2019. Even China doesn't want weapons going to other countries these days - it's fully in charge of its Belt & Road initiative, and wants to maintain that power, even as it tries to expand economically in Africa et al. "Climate change"? the push is on for electric vehicles via US, Europe, Korea & Japan and especially China (now hosting Tesla, its own Nio, and several other large contenders). Other huge developments underway through new transformation in tech. Not fast enough for some of the destructive effects, but at least impressive human progress.

Then Wright offers up this curious passage: "For every action there is a reaction. Almost inevitably, a 'league of democracies' would lead to a de-facto league of authoritarians—and to deep fissures between the two." Uh, here in the European Union, things are going pretty well - no big "league of authoritarians" popping up, even though populists come and go. Is it possible that some alliances *attract* new members and *promote* reforms among old adversaries? I'm not so much of an idealist to think it *has* to, but the EU started out as an industrial alliance of just 6 countries 70 years ago, and now has expanded to contain 27 plus 4 associates, including much deeper ties and cooperation, with some observation status and looser alliances from countries outside. Turkey's observer status has been derailed by Erdogan's military adventures abroad and repression strategies at home (egged on by Putin, perhaps), but for countries trying to break out of repression like Belarus it remains a reasonable goal, not an unreachable ideal - certainly not something to fight against unless your initials are V.P.

It's odd that Wright then goes on to espouse issues like "arms control in space and cyberspace" while ignoring the recent Russian-backed internet hacks on SolarWinds and others - rather incredible. Seems a bit like looking for your lost keys under the streetlight - nice to talk about abstract things off in the distance, while ignoring critical ones close to home. China's already abusing use of AI & cyberspace, perhaps genetic engineering with its pioneering CRISPR work - shouldn't Wright mention that here, rather than an unstated aside?

4) Okay, running out of gas - "Respect for international law". "if America had abided by international law over the last decades, mistakes like Iraq & Syria over the past couple of decades wouldn't have happened". Well, Hussein was hoping to invade Saudi Arabia. Sudan has gone from one humanitarian disaster to another without our help. Russia destroyed Chechnya over several years, and Afghanistan before. Iran put down its own protesters much like Syria started out when the US provided some arms to some rebels, plus Iraq's hunt for weapons of mass destruction wasn't exactly benign and unthreatening. Qaddafi was ready to wipe out Benghazi and the ethnically different east (Cyrenaica) when the US *partially* went by international law. The Congo held a civil war that killed 5 million around 1997-2002 along with vicious rape gangs, without our involvement at all. Osama bin Laden's justification for 9/11 (2001) and our subsequent rush to break up Mideast anti-American insurgencies was what exactly? Our breaking *which* international laws? Is inaction the only way to avoid "mistakes"? Can we guess what worse might have happened vs the paths we chose, and try to hone better decisions for the future?

So who's being "idealistic" here? Al Gore proposed better international policing as a more appropriate & effective front prong to combat terrorism - it's not like half of us didn't try to elect him to handle it, being "progressive realists" under our own definition. (He was known as a pioneer for global warming, tackling problems with welfare as we knew it, expanding the Internet, et al., though undoubtedly some of his early solutions would look foolish looking back 20 years later, just like attempts to provide universal healthcare in 1994 weren't the pretties by today's standards - nor those from 10 years ago either).

Note that Obama & *allies* that supposedly shifted to "unabashed" regime change which "entailed a cynical exploitation of international governance and a disingenuous invocation of international law" was done to do what, remove a true democrat, champion of the people, beacon of hope for pan-Arabism? Hardly - it was a military dictator in power since 1969 who was known for petty terrorist acts abroad and torturing his people at home, as humorously portrayed in Sacha Cohen's "The Dictator", not that murder should be funny (but the movie is). That Qaddafi tried to reform himself after 9/11 should be appreciated, but during the Arab Spring, people across the region were looking for a new direction and to right past wrongs. That the US should assist where possible in such a confused movement upending the status quo is *expected*, even though horridly complex and fraught with failure. We still admire France for assisting the colonists in the Revolution (even though it was self-serviing to their power structure at the time - but France soon adopted many of the same ideals). Idealism made real. Ignoring Rwanda still hits Hillary as a key moral failure and a major foreign policy mistake to inform later policy, even though we broke no international laws in avoiding it. Helping Poles in Solidarnost failed, but was a helpful failure that started to nudge the country and region towards freedom a decade later. Actions in Yugoslavia - diplomatic and military - helped ease the disintegration but imperfectly. Yet Soros' and some American assistance across East Europe helped them catch up from 40 years of a bleak Communist economy and legal system, as did the subsequent joining of the EU - certainly military measures are not the only way, but protecting the rest of Ukraine from Russian-supported troops in Donbas *did* ease that crisis (and didn't cause a World War, thank you very much), whether Putin's feelings were hurt or not. Obama taking out ISIS with a 5-nation mission was excruciating, but helped remove a horrid movement/ad hoc regime that he and Bush both had been blamed for allowing. Yet fixing your own mistakes doesn't buy so much praise from some - even though it's an important part of "realism".

Did the NATO allies (not just US) overstep their UN mandate in Libya? a bit. But arguably not that much. And for not bad reasons. The background is it's hard to get some of the member states (Russia and China especially) to support any actions at all, and when they do, it's a halfway point to effective resolution. In Kosovo, Yeltsin dropped his troops into Prishtina to take the airport ahead of the allies - fortunately only a bit of posturing and buffoonery to make a show, rather than a serious disruption of peacekeeping efforts. With Putin, it's been much worse - including chemical weapons and attacks and the famed shootdown of the Malaysian airliner, despite the continued propaganda of Russia-aligned leftist rags, not to mention disrupted cyberwar that Russia launched into long before 2016, interfering in elections around the world.

[analysis of stages of intervention and potential violations - somehow the authors don't see *all* as overstep:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0603/38ae8f77d09f834eae20f90599020bbc09... ]

Wright waxes on about good intentions being "disciplined, subordinated to the imperative of building a true global community", but he ignores the flaws and evils and difficulties of that true global community. This is no cakewalk. Obsession over every failure, gleaning over every success, is a non-serious approach to creating a new framework to interact with an increasingly fast-paced interconnected world. It is also realistic to say the US has frequently been the leader in many positive movements, developments, & historical moments, including our leadership in WWII and the almost-lost Korean War, and like it or not, Reagan's leadership in standing up to Russia in Europe. But also our leadership in finance, when we drive the recovery, however flawed, from the 2008 crash. In tech, leadership in practical new approaches aka business models such as Uber and AirBNB and Facebook/Google marketing, or work models like Agile programming and Slack and Zoom, or confronting our social ills like racism publicly and working them out for all to see. We make mistakes, we break things, we build things, we're often full of shit, but we often - not always - put in the work to turn that shit into shinola.

Even now, with our 4 year brainfart culminating in the riot at the Capitol, we get to see and show another common American phenomenon - how we somehow pull together to right the ship, start punishing those who need punishing, remove those who need removing, agreeing on new standards and solutions, but without the mass detentions and executions in football stadiums that scarred Latin America's 70's, the censorship that's tainted China's management of Hong Kong, the assassinations and baseless jailings that have become a signature of Russia's handling of dissidents. (Ignoring our poor showing at Gitmo, and our embracing of torture methods and juvenile but punishing harassment of detainees at its worst.)

The best thing about recent events is Democrats and some Republicans even is we didn't panic - we organized, we used the laws effectively, we came prepared, we communicated. From a splntered chaotic Democratic field a year ago at the start of a pandemic, we circled around an effective if not completely charismatic figure that seemed the best to carry us forward, and we persisted through setbacks, including organizing to win the Senate in a final tense 2-seat runoff in a typically racist and backwards-feeling southern state. Maturely pushing back against the immature ravings that took the Capitol - a symbolic folly more than an effective attack on US democracy. Going into Trump's 2nd Impeachment today - as much to show it still matters, whether he's almost out the door, as any actual effect.

There's more than enough Progressive Realism around - even from those like Biden who aren't *that* progressive, but are realistic enough to manage and ally themselves with those who are, similar to the coordination and cooperation of Pelosi and The Squad, even without "the numbers". I keep repeating, wars are way way down from past decades and from WWII era. Poverty has been largely constrained and decreased through economic growth and better distribution. Medicine has made some pretty impressive jumps lately. Tools to combat global warming are coming around. Social advances like better support for women in work and politics is coming about. It's unrealistic to think all this will happen in a moment. But it's visible, and tangible. Realistically, there's a lot to be done to improve our lot. Some idealism is needed, especially to identify goals, reachable or not, and then a lot of practical effort to make it happen, with the inevitable resistance and the mistakes that come with doing difficult things. We can live with that. We can grow with it too.