Ethics in an age of realpolitik?

Can a change of ethical behavior in American foreign policy lead to better results with allies, enemies and fence sitters? President Obama says that it is a false dichotomy to choose between doing what is right and doing what is in America's best interest. “As for our common defence, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” This is essentially a values based approach to affairs of state...quite a change from "realpolitik." So is this position naive and hopelessly "idealistic" or is it realistic. Essentially when you break down realpolitik to its essence it is situational ethics. Whatever the situation calls for, you do. If there is a ticking bomb you beat the information out of the target...if you feel threatened then you strike first. However, people of most world faiths believe in a maxium Christians know as "The Golden Rule" (do unto others as you would have them do unto you). When a person of faith becomes a head of state must their ideals give way to a 'higher calling?.' If American values are worth fighting and dying for...how much risk should we take to maintain them? Political leaders always begin with high ideals and lofty goals but as wise King Solomon in Ecclesiates 9:11 says, "I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all." (ASV) Indeed both good and bad will come in the years ahead but what matters is not what trips us up, but for what we stand. Shalom, Salam, Peace

The views expressed here are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Army or the Defense Department.