In his second inaugural address President Barack Obama scarcely mentioned foreign policy. But in his actions and words it has become apparent that he tends to be a realist in the conduct of America's international affairs.
According to students of American diplomatic history, a realist is one who acts in the interest of the nation with scant regard for moral considerations and little appetite for promoting democracy. In contradistinction, an idealist pursues foreign policies based primarily on values, even if these policies risk coming across as self-righteous, and puts principle ahead of power.
Richard Nixon was a realist. He engaged routinely with the leaders of the Soviet Union and established diplomatic relations with China because he believed these overtures would enhance America's security. It hardly mattered to him that the regimes in both countries governed in a manner inimical to American democratic principles. He was content to deal with the world as he found it.
Jimmy Carter was an idealist. He made democracy and human rights the foundation of his foreign policies, especially in Latin America, and ordered American athletes to boycott the Moscow Olympics in 1980 in response to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Convinced that his advocacy of democratic values would eventually produce a better and safer world, Carter countenanced the overthrow of several of America's longtime autocratic allies, such as the shah in Iran and Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua.
More recently, George W. Bush pursued a foreign policy based in part on ideals. Although he adopted a realist's rationale for his invasion of Iraq — that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and the United States had to invade to neutralize the threat — many in his administration also justified the action as an effort to bring democracy to Iraq. This, in turn, would lead to free governments taking hold throughout the Middle East. Peace and prosperity would ensue.
Obama, the realist, inherited two wars from the Bush administration. Despite protests from some conservatives, he ended the one in Iraq. He argued, correctly in my view, that we had provided the Iraqis with the conditions to create something resembling a national government. By staying another year, or five or 10, we could not materially improve upon that.
Now the United States is making plans to quit Afghanistan after a dozen years of war. But there the situation is far more precarious than in Iraq. The government's writ extends barely beyond major cities. Warlords compete for influence and wealth. The drug trade flourishes. To be sure, girls can now attend school in some areas, people have access to better health care, and the legitimate economy, thanks to billions of dollars in international aid, has grown. But the likelihood of any kind of enduring stability is slim. More a collection of tribes and clans than a nation state, Afghanistan has been, is, and will continue to be beset by turmoil and internecine bloodshed. There is little or no prospect of ending that.
Americans are weary of war. More than 6,000 of our troops have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many thousands more have been mauled, maimed or psychologically traumatized. If we have learned anything at all from Vietnam, it is that a democracy cannot prosecute a war effectively once its own people have turned against it. Americans are fed up. It's time to get out.
If it is wise for Obama to end our direct involvement in Afghanistan, as I would contend, it would be perilously irresponsible for the United States to take a less active role in international affairs or to reconsider our commitment to combating terrorism and promoting democracy. When, for example, the French requested our help in getting their troops to Mali, where an al-Qaida affiliated rebel army threatened to take power and render the country a safe haven for terrorists, the United States should have reacted immediately and with all means at our disposal. Instead, we hesitated and then, at least initially, provided minimal aid.
In this case, as in others, we are not acting out of altruism. We respond to threats and crises because it is in our national interest and consistent with our democratic and humanitarian values. We may wish it otherwise, but a nuclear-armed Iran or North Korea threatens us and the international order. If Islamic terrorists were to take over an unstable Pakistan, which already owns a nuclear arsenal, it would dramatically alter the balance of power in the region and perhaps in the world. And al-Qaida and similar fanatical groups, who acknowledge no borders, can strike from anywhere.
If these countries and groups believe that the United States has decided, for any reason, to relax its vigilance or relinquish its leadership role, the result could be catastrophic. Our security, and that of much of the planet, depends on our constant and resolute efforts to keep the rogue states and terrorists at bay. We should also encourage, where and when prudent, those who aspire to establish democracy in fragile and formerly despotic states.
These commitments are onerous, abiding and costly. They require the values of an idealist and the pragmatism of a realist. Only America, with its power and prestige, can assume them. As Obama has said often, we are the one indispensable nation. It is in our interest to remain so.
Robert J. Callahan, a retired diplomat and former Chicagoan, served as U.S. ambassador to Nicaragua.