Can Realism Save the GOP?

Fresh from offering some clarifying testimony on Bush administration interrogation tactics, Philip Zelikow says that anyone urging the GOP to turn to "realism" to revive their political fortunes is selling snake oil:

For at least the last hundred years, most full-throated critiques of how America should approach the world regard their views as realistic, whatever their argument. They all regard their foes as naïve or venal, people who either bury their heads in the sand or exaggerate threats to chase imaginary monsters. Arthur Link wrote quite thoughtfully of the "higher realism" of Woodrow Wilson.

So as Republicans wonder where they will find a foreign policy, please don't think the problem will be solved if only Republicans will be "realists" once more. On the other hand, there is a certain nostalgia in recalling a team that took so much pride in professional competence ...

Fair point. I would suggest that the GOP mine this 2008 survey [pdf] from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs for some insights.

Either way, if the take-away from the George W. Bush years is that "incompetence" did them in, then the GOP will be setting themselves up for future problems. To take one example at random: the Iraq war. How would a competent administration have made Iraq's Sunnis and Baathists more receptive to U.S. military occupation? How would they have sealed the enormous borders with Iran and Syria to prevent the flow of arms and fighters? How would they have found enough troops to staff the occupation year-in and year-out? How would they have better understood the tribal and cultural dynamics of Iraq? Was there any government official - prior to 2003 - who had experience as an American viceroy in the Arab world?

I'm all for competence. But ideas matter too.