"then Richardson is just a wee bit too convince about the ability of multilateralism to solve everything."

Well, gollleee! We agree on something!

Hi Daniel, nice post. I don't think I'm reading anything into Richardson's article when I say that I don't see him assigning an omnipotent capability to multi-lateralism.

It seems to me he said that the U.S. should work multilaterally to establish norms, that it should repair its foreign relations, and revive its human rights image abroad, but that when it comes to crises the U.S. must take the lead to solve them. By implication he names Rwanda-type situations as an example of when the U.S. can act unilaterally: "The norm of absolute territorial sovereignty is moot when national governments partner with those who rape, torture, and kill masses of people."

That sounds realistic, I think.

Steve LeVine, author
The Oil and the Glory
http://www.oilandglory.com

Richardson does say right up front that the New Realism is Realistic. Dan, if I understand him correctly, is saying that the New Realism may be Realistic but isn't realistic, not really.

OK. I give Richardson points up front for his essay's lack of handwringing on the question of withdrawing troops from Iraq, and his preoccupation with the nuclear terrorism problem. And though he does lapse into laundry-listism at several points (expand the UN Security Council to include "a country in Africa"? What for?) he doesn't do so any more than the other candidates.

With that said, I tend to agree with Dan about Richardson's tendency to view multilateralism as the answer to every question, even in cases where for multilateralism to happen the United States must display all the leadership, bear all the costs and assume all the risks. I would have had fewer objections to the theory of such multilaterism back in 1993, but a lot has changed since then -- America's international position has weakened, and a change of attitude toward collaborative institutions is only going to take us so far right now. That's a statement I suspect Richardson might agree with in principle but ignore in practice, given his confidence in his personal diplomacy to resolve difficult situations.

I would have liked to see less about collaborative international institutions from Richardson, and more about the institutions the United States must rely on to conduct any foreign policy. Chief among these is the State Department, about which he says nothing. Nor does he discuss the importance of orderly procedures in the foreign policy process; one would think that if his experience with the Clinton administration hadn't shown him the importance of these, seven years of the Bush administration demonstrating how foreign policy should not be managed would have. Are other nations more or less willing to work with the United States when they are in doubt as to whether the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State or the Vice President is guiding American foreign policy now, and six months from now? That question only answers itself if it is asked, and Richardson -- or his staff at any rate -- doesn't ask it.

These are two omissions that, if they reflect Richardson's thinking and he were to be elected President, could have obvious consequences. I can't say anything so definitive about how Richardson's Foreign Affairs history looks at past American foreign policy. Truman's administration and Eisenhower's didn't share a commitment to a strong military; this was one of their principle disagreements. And about the only think Richardson gets right about George Kennan is that Kennan published in Foreign Affairs. But this probably bothers other people less than it bother me.

Overall, and comparing the essay under his byline with those other candidates have sent to Foreign Affairs, I give Richardson credit for thinking seriously about foreign policy and for being right about some important issues. I can't say the same for Gov. Huckabee, whose essay bears all the hallmarks of a document assembled by committee, the members of which all got to insert individual sentences that appear in the document more or less without reference to any of the others. Gov. Huckabee just doesn't seem to have devoted much thought at all to foreign policy -- he is in good company among the current front runners in both parties as far as that goes -- and I'd bet good money he didn't even read the piece that appears under his byline, let alone write it.

Huckabee (or somebody) writes, "Sun-tzu's ancient wisdom is relevant today: "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Too bad there is no such quote in Sun Zi's Art of War. What else did his researchers get wrong? Perhaps is what you get when Frank Gaffney -- the neocon community's village idiot -- is a foreign policy advisor.

Sun-tzu's ancient wisdom is relevant today: "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

Huh? Sun Tzu never say anything remotely approaching that. I speak as someone who owns about a dozen English translations of Suntzu pingfa ("Sun Tzu: Art of War") and who wrote a book re-interpreting all his maxims in the context of developing and marketing technology.

Suntzu pingfa says nothing about "friends" and only makes a single comment about allies ("United with your allies on intersecting ground.", Chapter 8).

The gist of his advice about enemies (and I'm really condensing and simplifying here) is "Pick your battles carefully", "Calculate the factors and costs ahead of time", "Be deceptive and inventive" and "The best victory is one where your enemy simply gives up."

The saying "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" actually appears to have originated in "The Godfather, Part II". But that probably wouldn't have sounded as impressive in Foreign Affairs. :-) ..bruce..

I love how all these foreign policy "experts" superciliously comment on the foreign policy ideas of the candidates.

How on earth is Dan Drezner, of all people, qualified to give foreign policy advice. This is the man who not only supported the Iraq invasion but even swallowed the democracy nonsense "I've written elsewhere why democratizing Iraq might be easier than many believe" (March 31 2003).

On Israel and Palestine, Huckabee is actually insane. he openly calls for ethnic cleansing and defers only to the Jewish people as having rights to the land. On the basis of this interview with Wolf Blitzer alone (and Blitzer is no dove himself), Huckabee should be eliminated from having any say in foreign policy at all. The real danger here is that this means that Giuliani and Huckabee are the two most likely winners of the republican nomination and both are totally Batsh!t crazy on the Middle East. In Clinton wins the democratic nomination, I fear (because she is such an easy target for republicans) that the republicans will win the presidency yet again. Meaning, we are only at the beginning of the hard times...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f1hf93Md7Q