Letters to the Editor
-
(Un)Realists
The most frustrating thing about it (and kudos to Mr. Greenwald for drawing attention to this in his tireless way) is how the "realist/pragmatist" position, as portrayed in the media, is anything BUT realistic or pragmatic: 1) Support permanent war at expense of needed domestic spending; 2) Endlessly increase military budget; 3) Back untenable, undemocratic, autocratic Third World regimes; 4) Undermine international institutions in favor of unilateralism; 5) Engage in wars of opportunity around the globe, as required/desired; 6) Continue our dependence on fossil fuels; 7) Pursue foreign policies that further erode American credibility.
And this is after it's already been demonstrated that the standard neocon/reactionary Cold Warrior Big Army(tm) approach doesn't work as a deterrent to or as a defense from terrorism (see 9/11 for example).
But the media considers that the realist position, and anything outside of that is not even considered -- even among mainstream liberal pundits, who are too busy trying to establish "realist" bona fides. There is a wafer-thin continuum of acceptable public opinion -- and this serves defense contractors just fine, but doesn't help our country much at all in the long run.
Just as Bush's War in Iraq created the very menace in Iraq he was claiming to be protecting us from, so I see the "realist" stance doing much the same with the country at large.