> But one of the antiwar movement's big problems is that the moral
> rhetoric of American peaceniks ("violence is not the answer" "no
> blood for oil" et cetera) does not map onto the
> prudential--realist--case that we should sacrifice the well-being of
> Iraqis to create a calmer and more orderly world. And if you don't
> map onto the realist case, you run an immense danger of falling into
> the role of apologists for what really was a very bad dictatorship.
>
>
> Brad DeLong
>
===========================
Nay, the problem with realism is that it attempts/succeeds in using cynicism to trump ethical discourse. It was, after all, realists who sold Saddam his biochem. weapons and were apologists for his regime until he looked like he could make trouble for the oligarchy in Riyadh. Granted the slogans you mention are highly problematic, but your use of Kant to make point (i) is loaded with ethical norms already. The Machiavelli-Clausewitz-Morgenthau-Waltz paradigm leads to horrible diplomatic skills and policy prescriptions; it's time for a good old fashioned paradigm shift.
Ian