Wolfowitz - Asshat Maximus

My first impression when I saw that Foreign Policy magazine had allowed for Paul Wolfowitz to publish a commentary on "Realism" was WHAT THE FUCK over. Of all the people in the world, there are only a few individuals who really don' t deserve a soapbox on which to express their professional opinion. Paul Wolfowitz is definitely one of them.

This is not the place to reargue the Iraq war. So let's stipulate that the issue here is not whether to use military force to promote changes in the nature of states; it's about whether -- and how -- to promote such changes peacefully. On that issue there is a genuine debate between realists and their critics. And a desire for pragmatism should not be confused with a specific foreign-policy doctrine that minimizes the importance of change within states.

Just wow. My head nearly exploded when I read his statement in the first page. Clearly, Mr. Wolfowitz has a desire to justify his actions as DepSecDef during the Bush administration through a "subtle" criticism of the current administration's foreign policy approach. Here's the piece where he tries to set the record straight on the correct approach to foreign policy. He's a real piece of work. Perhaps the most amazing statement he has in this article is that he is a "realist." I guess that depends on one's definition of a "realist" - like consistently underestimating the number of military personnel, funds required, and time involved in nation-building after a US invasion of foreign countries, for instance.  

Interestingly, FP has decided to not allow comments on the article, perhaps fearing the overwhelming flood of attacks against this asshat who, along with Doug "stupidest guy on the planet" Feith and his Dark Lord Don Rumsfeld, threw our military forces into the tar pit that is Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan. I think that it's just disgraceful, considering the fine level of commentary from (most) of their other contributers. But go take a look, tell me what you think.  

UPDATE: Cheryl points to the FP response by four commentators on Wolfie's article.

Comments

[Ray]

Reading that article was like being caught up in a skein of wool It seemed to me that it was a mistaken idea that democracy can be supported without active involvement. This therefore accompanies self-interest, which then, automatically, means unavoidable interference, however intentionally benign, in that country's diplomatic, political and physical strata, and makes enemies as a result, both inside the country being helped and outside it, too. "Democracy" is not sufficiemtly discussed in that article; it takes for granted that we know "it" by sensory perception. "It", however, forms differently in and among different cultures; it isn't an homogeneous phenomena, but allows for national voting, and hopefully (personal view) constant differences of opinion. Does Wolfowitz mean his democracy or someone elses? One man's meat is another's poisson. He surely doesn't believe that Afhganistan democracy (if that arises) would be the same as Pakistan's.
I remember saying, regarding a serious family problem at the time, to my brother some years ago: "You are out of touch with reality in this issue!"
He replied: "Whose reality?".

[Kevin Horner]

Wolfowitz ought to go read his "New American Century" drivel again to realize that he and his cabal knew nothing about "realism". They were living in an adolescent fantasy then and still are now.

[Cesar Arroyo]

This tool represents total incompetence that has cost the loss of countless lives. Fraud policies that lead to disastrous results showcasing total incompetence sums up my thoughts when I see his name or picture.

[tammy swofford]

Hey, turn about is fair play. The Foreign Affairs pundits didn't mind putting PM Tony Blair on the page with his ludicrous commentary
_A Battle for Global Values_ in 2006. Now if that wasn't a classic piece of political vacuum.

Tammy

[Ray]

Yes, indeed- Tony Blair is a balloon.

[Cheryl Rofer]

Wolfowitz defines "realism" far too narrowly, to suit his arguments, but then uses it interchangeably in the common and IR ways, confusing the issues.

I may try to write something on this article (thanks for finding it, J.!). Or maybe not. It would take several days to work through all the things that are wrong with it.