Eh.. realpolitik is short term and almost always misses the big picture. When things change, you wind up on the wrong side, like us with Mubarak right now. Or all that Taliban and Saddam funding once upon a time.

There's a balance of course.. but in a case like this, I'd elevate America the idea over America the set of short term interests, and I'm embarrassed by Biden's comments too.

Indeed. People will make you think that Realpolitik is some hard-thinking, tough-decisions geopolitical chess game. But it's not, it's just international checkers, making the least bad decision at the last minute because you haven't planned ahead. It's a shame that it has infected American foreign policy for so long.

Naive idealism is no better, but pragmatic idealism is far far better, but also far more difficult.

Yeah, if there's one thing I can't stand, it's hearing condescending "adult opinions" on things that have been colossally mismanaged for decades.

For perhaps the first time ever, I wholeheartedly agree with jbooth for two posts in a row.

Realpolitik got you Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bin Laden, 9/11, Noriega and a whole slew of other problems.

Makes you wonder if it is really worth it.

The Iraq debacle (2003-) was something different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

That was a bit later, before then we had this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_...

hence the "(2003-)", although arguably it'd be more correct to say "(2003-2009)"

Ok. With Iraq in the list above I specifically meant the period when Saddam was being propped up by the US as an example of realpolitik, not the situation later on.