# Posted 11:38 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

FOR POLISCI JUNKIES: I noticed the following in a too-long-to-be-fiskworthy NYT piece from today:

"In the cold war you could argue that American unilateralism had no cost," [U. Chicago] Professor [John] Mearsheimer continued. "But as we're finding out with regard to Iraq, Iran and North Korea, we need the Europeans and we need institutions like the U.N. The fact is that the United States can't run the world by itself, and the problem is, we've done a lot of damage in our relations with allies, and people are not terribly enthusiastic about helping us now."

For the uninitiated, Mearsheimer must come off as just another member of the liberal academic establishment. But he is actually the foremost advocate of "offensive neo-realism" whose reputation rests on anti-multilateralist works such as "The False Promise of International Insitutions".

Mearsheimer is also famous for predicting back in 1991 that the end of the Cold War would lead the EU to fall apart, thus returning Europe to the balance of power politics of the prewar era. Oops.

In short, this is a huge "I told you so" moment for neo-liberal and constructivist scholars. What's interesting about this for non-academics is that it is a powerful indication of how even the most tough-minded and cynical academics, i.e. neo-realists, have transformed their theoretical principles into an argument against the use of force.

The foundation of neo-realism is the belief that we live an anarchic world where armed might is the decisive force in world politics. Yet these same neo-realists expect the United States not to deploy the massive firepower that it has.

To be fair, a tough-minded realist can argue that the invasion of Iraq was a waste of valuable firepower that might be better employed elsewhere. But that isn't what Mearsheimer is saying. He's actually talking about the positive worth of international institutions. And we're hearing the same from other prominent realists such as Stephen Walt and Bill Wohlforth. (Fareed Zakaria pretty much belongs on the list as well.)

Journalists often confuse neo-realists and neo-conservatives. I've seen Kagan & Kristol referred to as both. And this sort of confusion makes some sense, because neo-realists were far more likely to support tough American foreign policies during the Cold War (although some were noticeably liberal).

But now a divide has emerged. Neo-conservatives believe in the use of force to promote American values. That position has almost no defenders in the academy today. It is considered primitive and naive. And that is why the reconstruction of Iraq is so important. If a stable and democratic Iraq emerges from the current occupation, the foundations of the academic study of international politics will have been shaken.

If the rebuilding of Iraq fails, the lesson drawn will be that idealistic rhetoric is nothing more than a cover for the short-sighted and self-destructive policies. While simplistic, that may be the right lesson to draw. I am hardly persuaded that Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al. have any broader strategic vision for the use of American power.

It is sad that there is no American political party that would have both waged war on Iraq and taken reconstruction seriously. I believe that the absence of such a party is more of a historical accident than a reflection of deeper currents in American political life. With proper leadership, a party espousing such an approach could demonstrate that the center-ground in American politics is not the home of abject compromise, but rather a vital and principled foundation for a unifying foreign policy derived from traditional American values. Someday. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion