FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Pragmatic Idealism

by DAVID MODEL

Troops in Afghanistan and Iraq; drones flying over Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen Pakistan, special ops assassins in 70 countries; aid to Israel, Turkey, Columbia, Pakistan  and over 700 bases around the world.  All these actions are a result of policies conceived in the U.S. foreign policy and defense communities based on specific objectives and created on the basis of foreign policy axioms which have guided it at least since World War II.  These axioms, which are euphemistically defined as an applied practical approach to foreign policy decisions based on whether policy solves the problem rather than on what is legal, ethical or moral, are rarely discussed in public discourse.

These axioms are the key to understanding an American foreign policy that regularly violates international law such as the Geneva Conventions, Convention on Torture, Genocide Convention, the Inhumane Weapons Convention and the UN Charter and to questioning the rationalizations and normalizations of these violations.

This pragmatic approach is grounded in a long history of intellectual deliberations emanating from the works of William James, John Dewey, Charles Sanders Pierce, Walter Lippmann, Hans Morgenthau and Karl Paul Reinhold Niebuhr.  According to William James: “Ideals are an imaginative understanding of that which is desirable in that which is possible”.  Similarly, Niebuhr wrote that “The task of world organization must be attempted from the standpoint of historical realism.  The conclusion could be justified by the simple fact that no historical process has ever, even remotely, conformed to the pattern which the idealists have mapped out for it.”  In other words, foreign policy must temper idealistic sentiments with pragmatic or realistic considerations.  One implication of a politically realistic philosophy is the dismissal of human rights and international law as absolutes which shouldn’t necessarily interfere with foreign policy decisions whose objectives are to protect American interests.

James Baker, Chief of Staff in the Reagan George H. W. Bush’s administrations and Under Secretary of Commerce under President Ford succinctly elucidated the philosophy of political realism in 2007 when he stated that: “The principles that guide American foreign policy during the coming years will determine how successful the United States will be as it addresses the complex global challenges that confront us.  A foreign policy simply rooted in values without a reasonable rationale of concrete interests will not succeed.”

There is an expansive dichotomy between the essence of the ideas espoused by these men and the actual application of their principles in practice by foreign-policy decision-makers.  According to the philosophy of “political realism”, values including human rights and international law must be sacrificed to “concrete interests” in the name of “political realism”.

One critical flaw in this philosophy is that human rights and international law are indivisible and compromising them in the interests of some ostensibly higher cause renders them meaningless.

Another critical flaw is characterized by the so-called “concrete interest” which in almost all cases is an action to serve exclusively American interests by violating human rights or international law.  “Military humanism” was nothing more than a euphemism rationalizing actions that were, in fact, war crimes, such as the bombing of Serbia.

For example, President Carter stated in an address to Notre Dame in 1977 that: “I believe that we have a foreign policy that is democratic, that is based on fundamental values and that was [the] power and influence which we have for humane purposes.”

On the other hand, Carter supported brutal dictators such as the generals in Argentina and Brazil, Pinochet in Chile, Mobutu in the Congo, and Somoza in Nicaragua whom he protected from the Sandinistas and General Suharto in Indonesia whom he rearmed when more weapons were needed to slaughter more East Timorese.

Where were the ideals in his support of General Suharto who was committing genocide in East Timor?  The pragmatic arguments centered on the abundance of oil off the southern coast of East Timor and the deep water passages in Timorese waters that were suitable for travel by American nuclear-armed submarines.

By supplying weapons to General Suharto who was committing genocide against the Timorese, Carter was complicit in that genocide.  Complicity in Article III of the Convention can include supplying arms, advice, training, intelligence or any direct military support.

Supporting the aforementioned brutal, corrupt dictators served no “concrete interest” other than to maintain American-friendly governments in power.  In many cases such as Mobutu and Pinochet, democratically-elected governments were overthrown in the name of pragmatic idealism.

President Clinton described the bombing of Serbia as a humanitarian intervention and propagated a number of myths to create the illusion of bombing a country in the service of lofty objectives.  For example, the myth about the Bosnian prisoner behind barbed wire in a concentration camp, photographed by British journalists, was completely fabricated but rallied public opinion behind the humanitarian cause.

Targets in Serbia, notwithstanding the propaganda, included towns, schools, hospitals, factories manufacturing non-military products, utilities needed by the Serbian people to survive and shockingly, rescue workers who were attending to the wounded.

President Obama revealed his foreign policy philosophy when he won the same Nobel Prize as Henry Kissinger and in his speech disclosed that: “To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason”.  His words could have been written by Reinhold Niebuhr whom Obama proudly admits is his favorite philosopher.

Obviously, for President Obama, concrete interests embrace assassinations by special-ops forces, assassinations by drones, torture and sending more troops to Afghanistan to ensure the death of more Americans and Afghanis.

To understand the permanent framework in which foreign and defense policy operate requires a familiarity with the philosophy of “pragmatic idealism” that offers the luxury of rationalization and the reduction of cognitive dissonance.

DAVID MODEL teaches at Seneca College in Ontario. He is the author of State of Darkness: US Complicity in Genocide Since 1945, Lying for Empire: How to Commit War Crimes with a Straight Face, People Before Profits: Reversing the Corporate Agenda, and Corporate Rule: Understanding and Challenging the New World Order. He has just completed his fifth book Selling Out: Consuming Ourselves to Death. He can be reached at: David.Model@senecac.on.ca

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

January 19, 2017
Melvin Goodman
America’s Russian Problem
Dave Lindorff
Right a Terrible Wrong: Why Obama Should Reverse Himself and Pardon Leonard Peltier
Laura Carlsen
Bringing Mexico to Its Knees Will Not “Make America Great Again”
John W. Whitehead
Nothing is Real: When Reality TV Programming Masquerades as Politics
Yoav Litvin
Time to Diss Obey: the Failure of Identity Politics and Protest
Mike Whitney
The Trump Speech That No One Heard 
Conn Hallinan
Is Europe Heading for a “Lexit”?
Stephen Cooper
Truth or Twitter? Why Donald Trump Is No John Steinbeck
Binoy Kampmark
Scoundrels of Patriotism: The Freeing of Chelsea Manning
Ramzy Baroud
The Balancing Act is Over: What Elor Azaria Taught Us about Israel
Josh Hoxie
Why Health Care Repeal is a Stealth Tax Break for Millionaires
Kim C. Domenico
It’s High Time for a Politics of Desire
Shamus Cooke
Inauguration Day and Beyond
Clark T. Scott
More and More Lousy
David Swanson
Samantha Power Can See Russia from Her Padded Cell
Kevin Carson
Right to Work and the Apartheid State
Malaika H. Kambon
Resisting the Lynching of Haitian Liberty!
January 18, 2017
Gary Leupp
The Extraordinary Array of Those Questioning Trump’s Legitimacy (and Their Various Reasons)
Charles Pierson
Drone Proliferation Ramps Up
Ajamu Baraka
Celebrating Dr. King with the Departure of Barack Obama
David Underhill
Trumpology With a Twist
Chris Floyd
Infinite Jest: Liberals Laughing All the Way to Hell
Stansfield Smith
Obama’s Hidden Role in Worsening Climate Change
Ron Leighton
Trump is Not Hitler: How the Misuse of History Distorts the Present as Well as the Past
Ralph Nader
An Open Letter to President-Elect Donald Trump
Binoy Kampmark
NATO and Obsolescence: Donald Trump and the History of an Alliance
Zarefah Baroud
‘The Power to Create a New World’: Trump and the Environmental Challenge Ahead
Julian Vigo
Obama Must Pardon the Black Panthers in Prison or in Exile
Alfredo Lopez
The Whattsapp Scandal
Clancy Sigal
Russian Hacking and the Smell Test
Terry Simons
The Truth About Ethics and Condoms
January 17, 2017
John Pilger
The Issue is Not Trump, It is Us
John K. White
Is Equality Overrated, Too?
Michael J. Sainato
The DNC Hands the Democratic Party Over to David Brock and Billionaire Donors
John Davis
Landscapes of Shame: America’s National Parks
Andrew Smolski
Third Coast Pillory: Politicians and Rhetorical Tricks
Chris Busby
The Scientific Hero of Chernobyl: Alexey V. Yablokov, the Man Who Dared to Speak the Truth
David Macaray
Four Reasons Trump Will Quit
Chet Richards
The Vicissitudes of the Rural South
Clancy Sigal
“You Don’t Care About Jobs”: Why the Democrats Lost
Robert Dodge
Martin Luther King and U.S. Politics: Time for a U.S. Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Jack Sadat Lee
I Dream of Justice for All the Animal Kingdom
James McEnteer
Mourning Again in America
January 16, 2017
Paul Street
How Pure is Your Hate?
Jeffrey St. Clair - Alexander Cockburn
Did the Elites Have Martin Luther King Jr. Killed?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail