Foreign Policy - Schools of Thought

Former Marine officer and current Naval War College professor M. Thomas Owens discusses the history, limitations and nuances of various political scientist's theories on the International system at NRO, particularly with regard to America's role in light of current events. Interesting discussion about the Realist school, the "Neoconservative" school, and the Internationalist/Liberal school. Read the whole thing.

The Realist school recognizes states as the principal actors, and that the international system is one based on relative state power. Liberals contend that the actors goals "transcend power and security", such as peace and prosperity, and that actors other than states play critical roles. Realists have been critical of the Bush Doctrine of Pre-emption as noted below.

"Realists have predicted that the Bush Doctrine will lead to anti-hegemonic balancing on the part of other states — i.e., other states will takes actions to prevent the United Stated from establishing, or further establishing, international hegemony. But such an outcome has not occurred. There has been no anti-hegemonic balancing, even of the “soft” variety (the realists’ fall back position). This suggests that other nations consider the Bush Doctrine to be also in their own interests, or, at least, they do not worry that, in pursuing this doctrine, the U.S. intends to establish a hegemony harmful to their interests. This judgment is mostly likely based on an understanding of the nature of the political regime of the United States..."

In short, the Realist school ignores the TYPES of regimes when examining the balance of power. Liberals believe that international institutions and law can keep the peace, and view the Realist school as far too cynical, while the Realists belive the Liberals far too idealistic. Neoconservative theory, at least in foreign policy, is a bit of a blend, as they believe that the regime's internal characteristics matter, and that it is only prudent of the hegemon, the US, to use its power to provide not only stability, but propagate those principals upon which its own regime rests, liberal democracy.

The money quote:

"The Bush Doctrine is a species of “primacy” based on hegemonic stability. Primacy can be caricatured as a “go-it-alone” approach in which the United States intimidates both friends and allies, wields power unilaterally, and ignores international institutions. But the Bush Doctrine sees itself as having a “benevolent” primacy, an approach in keeping with its liberal political traditions, but which recognizes the world as a dangerous place in which a just peace is maintained only by the strong.

This form of primacy is based on the assumption that U.S. power is good not only for the United States itself but also for the rest of the world. The argument is that the United States can be fully secure only in a world where everyone else is also secure. The existence of liberal institutions is not sufficient for preserving this order. A liberal world order is possible only if the United States is willing and able to maintain it."

This sounds Reaganesque to me, the "America is the Shining City on the Hill", only we are doing things more actively to serve as a beacon today, as opposed to just being a passive role model for others to emulate. I guess I just might be a neoconservative, at least when it's explained in this fashion.