tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-132520298120231193.post6814091045960464498..comments2023-12-23T02:10:09.875-05:00Comments on howl at pluto: Dr. Kagan's Iran prescription; or, Will the real Robert Kagan please stand up?LFChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13551197682770555147noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-132520298120231193.post-9110539125014655132009-10-01T15:19:29.237-04:002009-10-01T15:19:29.237-04:00N,
Thanks for the comment. Yes, I suppose you coul...N,<br />Thanks for the comment. Yes, I suppose you could argue that U.S. policy in recent years has combined realism and liberalism, although one could equally well argue that the Bush admin pretty much jettisoned realism, at least in its most important decisions.<br /><br />I am, of course, familiar with the general outlines (if not the mountain of specialist literature) on the democratic or liberal peace. But there is a difference between saying "mature democracies don't fight each other" -- which is the core claim of the democratic peace view -- and saying "a newly democratic regime is less likely to acquire nuclear weapons than a theocratic autocracy." It's this latter claim on which Kagan's position depends, and I am inclined, for the time being at least, to remain a bit skeptical.<br /><br />I also remain skeptical of the view that we should forget about the nukes and focus on increasing the chances that the current regime will fall. I am no Iran expert, but I don't think Robert Kagan is one either. So you could look at this as a case of dueling ignoramuses. :)<br /><br />P.s. I also think the deleterious effects of Iran's going nuclear have probably been exaggerated, but that is a separate question.LFChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551197682770555147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-132520298120231193.post-3256820189857561172009-10-01T12:59:23.459-04:002009-10-01T12:59:23.459-04:00LFC,
"Why is there 'good reason' to s...LFC,<br />"Why is there 'good reason' to suppose that a democratic Iran might give up nukes when its regional ambitions and the configuration of forces in its environment will be, presumably, pretty much the same?"<br /><br />I believe it is variously called liberal pacifism, the liberal peace etc... Democracies are less prone to make war than non-democracies because the former embody a spirit of negotiation/bargaining/compromise. Schumpeter and Kant very relevant here but there are many others who are present in this formulation as well. <br />There is no tension unless you see liberalism and realism as irreconcilably opposed. US policy in the last decade or so clearly shows that they can and have been combined. Whether that is a good thing or not is a different matter altogether. <br />Kagan obviously thinks that when we deal with democracies there is some common spirit/interest of bargaining/compromise/cooperation possible. With non-democracies (especially powerful ones(, we have to think in realist terms). Best way to achieve security for US is to democratize non-democracies. Given Iraq and Afghanistan, the US cannot invade, right? So, let's work on other means to achieve regime change. For Kagan et. al, the costs of such an endeavor are worth it. What do you think?<br />N (have not been able to read your blog for a while on account of work)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com