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.

Does American foreign policy need to be more feminine?

Does American foreign policy need to be more feminine?

With Sarah Palin as the first republican nominated for Vice President it reminds me that American foreign policy could benefit from a mom in the room when important decisions are made. Gerte Hofstede noted in his monumental study of human behavior (for IBM) in over 100 countires that some cultures are more masculine and some more feminine. (he also noted other important characteristics but you can google his name and find out about those) I guess the question is...would a woman bring a different viewpoint to the task of statecraft? Would she see new ways to resolve conflict or fall into the same patterns as her predecessors? There is no doubt that golda meyer was an advocate of peace and though she was PM during the Yom Kippur War disaster it seems her generals were to blame for the state of the Army and that failure. She showed her tough side when she ordered the Massad to assisinate the Munic Olympic kidnappers but even there I can see a certain amount of restraint. Another "Iron Lady" margaret thacher was certainly a hawk both in using military force in the Falklands and pushing HW Bush to use force against Iraq. However compared with the foreign policy adventures of many others these actions seem cautious. This may be an interesting subject for debate (not just the one with Senator Biden) in the coming days.
The views expressed here are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Army or the Defense Department.