Be Unrealistic

The 'realist' critique of the war runs the gamut from conservatives (here and here) to moderates and liberals (both here). Even many lefties argue that the war in Iraq was and is not in our national interests, and even worse, may be making us less safe. In this fantastic review in the London Review of Books, Corey Robin reminds us of, among other things, two problems with the realist critique of the war. First, as Robin points out 'The mere fact that some politicians misused or abused the principle of national security need not call that principle into question'. If anything, by affirming security as a measure by which policies are judged, it only strengthens that principle.

Second, the even better, and more unusual point is that the realist critique plays into our anti-utopian ethos, inverting the relationship between peace, security and idealism. Robin again:

'The 20th century, it's said, taught us a simple lesson about politics: of all the motivations for political action, none is as lethal as ideology. The lust for money may be distasteful, the desire for power ignoble, but neither will drive its devotees to the criminal excess of an idea on the march. Whether the idea is the triumph of the working class or of a master race, ideology leads to the graveyard.'

Robin devotes the rest of the review to reminding us that governments commit and have committed horrible acts in the name of security - present examples include expansion of emergency powers, a renewed defense of torture, and the irrational and unplanned invasion of two countries that has taken tens of thousands of lives. Robin hits the nail on the head. It is not merely that in the name of security governments infringe on life and liberty. It is also that the use of security as a critical principle reinforces the pessimistic crisis-orientation of our political culture.