In his first book, A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace 1812-1822, Henry Kissinger wrote that, “Every statesman must attempt to reconcile what is considered just with what is considered possible.” What is considered just depends on one’s own domestic values, but what is considered possible depends not only on the resources at your disposal but of the resources and values of opposing states. In other words, we can’t always get our way in a complex and intractable world. This may be one of the most useful and simply stated definitions of realism. A related definition is embodied in the “particularism” of George F. Kennan. Particularism stands against universal values and the legalistic rules that uphold them, and implicitly accepts the world as it is, with all of its cultural and philosophical differences that require different strategies. Because realism comprehends the sheer variety of the world, it has traditionally been the friend of area specialists: the Arabists, Sinologists, and others whose deep cultural knowledge has argued for particular approaches to different regions that abjure one-size-fits-all universalist strategies.
A world in which realism requires intense international engagement at many levels merely in order to operate effectively and be realistic.
But comprehending the world with all of its limitations and variations also means something deeper: recognizing, especially in the cyber age, just how ferociously claustrophobic and interconnected the world actually is. The protection afforded by oceans still matter, but less and less so. Of course, this was true even during the Cold War. Because it was a world struggle, the Cold War witnessed both hard-headed realism and internationalism. The world today is even more inextricably linked than it was then. A world now united by financial markets as much as by the spread of disease, to say nothing about how a war in Ukraine is affecting food supplies in sub-Saharan Africa, is a world in which realism requires intense international engagement at many levels merely in order to operate effectively and be realistic.
Read the full article from The National Interest.
More from CNAS
Executive Summary The U.S. monopoly on drones has ended. More than 30 nations already have or are developing armed drones, and at least 90 nations, as well as some non-state a...
By Elisa Catalano Ewers, Lauren Fish, Michael Horowitz, Alexandra Sander & Paul Scharre
The National Security Transition
On January 20th, 2017, a new President will take the oath of office. It is one of the most quintessentially American moments, the peaceful transition of leadership in the worl...
By Michèle Flournoy & Elbridge Colby
Technology, Innovation, and the Future of Warfare
We are living in the midst of an information revolution with disruptive changes in electronic warfare, cyberspace, automation, and networking. The U.S. military must innovate ...
By Paul Scharre & Jerry Hendrix
Strategic Choices for the Next President
The next U.S. president will inherit a daunting set of national security challenges demanding early and focused attention. From regional tensions in the Middle East and S...
By Richard Fontaine, Shawn Brimley & Julianne Smith