Nothing like rebranding LOL
Debates about Great Satan's foreign policy have revolved around three main traditions--liberal internationalism, realism, and nationalism.Now, Herr Professor accidentally (on purpose - nicht wahr?) stumbles onto the 4th Wave of neoconservatism with the puzzling nom d'guerre of something something "Conservative Internat'lism".
This approach spreads freedom, like liberal internationalism; arms diplomacy, like realism; and preserves national sovereignty, like nationalism. It targets a world of limited government or independent "sister republics," not a world of great power concerts or centralized international institutions.
See...
Conservative internationalism offers the best grand strategic framework for addressing America’s foreign policy challenges by providing a “middle way between a realist retreat to offshore defense, which spurns the advance of freedom, and a liberal internationalist commitment to open-ended diplomacy, which spurns the assertive use of force.”Funny thing tho - those "3 Tenets" easily fit into the daemoneoconic "5 Pillars" of Internat'lism, Primacy, Unilateralism, Militarism and Democrazy Promotion.
The Three tenets of
1.Spread freedom disciplined by threat;
2.Respect the constraints of domestic politics and public opinion;
3.Integrate force and diplomacy.
Conservative internationalism rests on a theoretical understanding of the international system that “privileges ideas as causal factors, while liberal internationalism privileges institutions, and nationalism and realism privilege power.” Therefore, in terms of overarching goals, Great Satan should focus on promoting freedom as the key to a more secure world, because “despots are the source of repeated violence in world affairs, not anarchy as realists believe or diplomatic misunderstandings as liberal internationalists assume.” Hence, conservative internationalists aim “to change the balance of existing domestic regimes, not just manage the external balance of power or strengthen international institutions.”
How should one decide where and how to promote democracy most vigorously?
Maintaining public support requires “setting priorities to spread freedom and knowing when to compromise.”
In today’s world, the author argues that America’s efforts to strengthen democracy should focus on geopolitically important countries that border other free nations, states like Pakistan, Turkey, Ukraine, or even North Korea at some point, as opposed to Afghanistan or Iraq. In fact, Nau criticizes the second Bush administration for engaging in democracy-building projects in distant lands where the prospects of democracy were slim, instead of using a ratchet approach.
As to the main policy tools for spreading freedom, conservative internationalists use force and diplomacy in tandem rather than utilizing force as a last resort after diplomacy or economic sanctions fail. The use (or threat) of force is a
"…parallel resort that accompanies democracy at every step of the way – demonstrating resolve, creating policy options, narrowing the maneuvering room of authoritarian opponents outside negotiations, and providing bargaining chips to conclude favorable deals inside negotiations."
Backing one’s diplomacy with the threat of force is more likely to make it work, and successful conservative internationalist leaders like Reagan knew when to “cash in” their military leverage and reach diplomatic objectives by making timely compromises. Military force is thus always in the service of diplomacy and must be disciplined by compromise.
Pic - "Creepy unfun unfree regimes don't call us Great Satan for nothing bay bee!"
