Shadi Hamid struggles with foreign policy labels:
It’s never really made sense to me to use a left-right spectrum when talking about foreign policy. What does it mean to have a “leftist” foreign policy approach? I assume that people use “leftist” as a proxy for “weak.” But, even the “weak/dove” “strong/hawk” spectrum is a weird one. I think the last 8 years would indicate that hawks have made us weaker, while doves would have made us stronger. Is a willingness to coddle dictators a sign of weakness or strength? And if it’s the former, then why do so a significant number of “neo-cons” have, contrary to what their ideology would suggest, a particular fondness for “moderate” Arab dictators? If we’re talking about the left’s foreign policy tradition, then a “moralist” concern with supporting human rights and democracy abroad is, I would say, distinctly “leftist.” But then we run into a problem: democracy promotion > leftist foreign policy approach > weak.
One the worst legacies of the Vietnam boomer syndrome has been turning complex foreign policy decisions - which should ultimately be pragmatic actions in defense of national self-interest - into idiotic left-right, patriot-traitor, soldier-hippie dichotomies. Abandoning that is part of Obama's promise. So far, so good, Mr Scowcroft.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.