{"id":6203,"date":"2013-03-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2013-03-01T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/2013\/03\/01\/is-offensive-realism-enough\/"},"modified":"2013-03-01T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-03-01T00:00:00","slug":"is-offensive-realism-enough","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/2013\/03\/01\/is-offensive-realism-enough\/","title":{"rendered":"Is Offensive Realism Enough?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n\tI recently read a fascinating article1<\/sup> on the forces involved in the rise and fall of nations. Author
\n\tRobert D. Kaplan introduced the concept of "offensive realism," which posits that global powers attain and maintain such a status not through upholding
\n\tnoble democratic principles, nor through mere force. They conquer international rivals by leveraging power and influence to outmaneuver and intimidate
\n\tthem. I noted that Kaplan\u2019s article omits any reference to a sovereign God who might control or influence planetary affairs.\n<\/p>\n

\n\tWithout pretending to grasp all that is envisioned by offensive realism (OR), I will venture to describe the difference between a biblical worldview of
\n\tgeopolitics versus OR\u2019s global humanism.\n<\/p>\n

\n\tOffensive realism (in a geopolitical context) is the brainchild of John J. Mearsheimer, who presents a secular perspective rooted in the principle of
\n\t\u201canarchy.\u201d This is not spontaneous mayhem but strategic political pragmatism. Believing as I do that God has a plan for this planet, I view the rise and
\n\tfall of nations through the grand prism of Bible prophecy. Thus I cannot accept OR as the foundational principle of geopolitics. That said, it\u2019s also true
\n\tthat humans\u2014both individually, and corporately as families and nations\u2014enjoy temporary divine authorization to exercise free choice and then experience the
\n\trequisite consequences. And so offensive, despite its secular limitations, does have value in both describing and predicting those consequences.\n<\/p>\n

\n\tFor example, Mearsheimer\u2019s realism debunks America\u2019s national belief that democracy is a necessarily superior force that ultimately triumphs\u2014if only given
\n\ta chance. (Consider the soaring rhetoric of George W. Bush\u2019s second inaugural address.) I certainly don\u2019t dispute the inherent superiority of government by
\n\tthe people. It\u2019s just that democracy doesn\u2019t automatically triumph in a world bullied by offensive realism. Indeed, democracy might succumb to other types
\n\tof government that aim to achieve global power and leverage it wisely.\n<\/p>\n

\n\tIn practical terms, OR requires strategic international policies rooted in reality rather than idealism. Even a global power cannot intervene militarily to
\n\tput down every tyrant on the world stage. OR requires that a superpower choose its battles wisely according to national interest. Mearsheimer concedes that
\n\tit may be proper, from a humanitarian perspective, to intervene militarily in non-strategic emergencies, such as the 1994 Rwanda massacre (which Bill
\n\tClinton famously failed to do). But OR forbids functioning as the world\u2019s moral police officers. In fact, morality per se <\/em>has nothing to do with
\n\tnational success among rival powers. Rather, Mearsheimer points to fear and intimidation as being dominant in the rise and respect of nations.\n<\/p>\n

\n\tMachiavelli, the medieval master of political strategy both for his day and ours, perceived this point. He declared that it is better for a prince to be
\n\tfeared than loved.\n<\/p>\n

\n\tBy contrast, America seems to care much about how the nation is perceived in the international community. Giving supreme regard to popular acceptance (not
\n\tonly of a country among its peers but among our own citizenry), Americans denounce hegemony and tyranny. Fine so far, but we overstretch our democratic
\n\tideal when we insist that it is the only form of government that is sustainable in the long term. OR disputes this assumption. Brutal hegemony may be
\n\timmoral (from whatever perspective one derives moral judgments), but world history shows that a despotic power can work and work well\u2014as long as it remains
\n\ta strategic bully.\n<\/p>\n

\n\tFor dictators, OR obviously works until they die or are weakened by age (unless they arrange for successful succession by other strongmen). Aging despots
\n\twere of course overcome by the various Arab Spring revolutions. Alas, the newly empowered populations have been democratically committing themselves to
\n\tcoercive and non-pluralistic theocracies. Many Americans (liberals and neoconservatives alike) express surprise and disillusionment that democracy has not
\n\tfacilitated freedom. But what could one expect when the vast majority of a population savors the strictures of sharia law? Perhaps their model of people
\n\tpower is not the democratic norm we enjoy in the Christian West.\n<\/p>\n

\nPerplexed proponents of democracy in Egypt, for example, are scratching their heads, wondering "Whatever happened to the 'Google Guy,2<\/sup>' who spearheaded the takedown of a dictatorial government?" Lenin might have pointed to the first wave of
\n\trevolutionaries, rather unkindly, as "useful idiots." In the Arab Spring, naive idealists did the dirty work in overthrowing the old order, unwittingly
\n\tsetting the stage for a more powerful political force waiting in the wings\u2014Islamic extremism. Events in Egypt are similar to the 1917 October Revolution in
\n\tRussia, which followed the overthrow of the Czars months earlier by those whose idealistic vision didn't coincide with the brute force of the Soviets\u2019 more
\n\tenduring pragmatic reality.\n<\/p>\n

\n\tBut didn\u2019t the Soviet-led world ultimately implode according to the inevitable outcome of oppression? No. All those political science professors in Western
\n\tclassrooms were mistaken in their rhapsodies about power to the people. The U.S.S.R. collapsed after backsliding from seven successful decades of OR.
\n\tFactors leading to its fracture included overextending itself in Afghanistan (d\u00e9j\u00e0 vu, America), an arms race against Ronald Reagan that was economically
\n\tunsustainable, and the Gipper\u2019s clever alliance with the Vatican in Polish Solidarity. After Reagan\u2019s clarion call for the fall of the Berlin Wall, it did
\n\tcome down\u2014but not because of any supposed manifest destiny for democracy.\n<\/p>\n

\n\tIf in doubt about that, consider what happened to the democratic uprising in Tiananmen Square. Unlike their comrades at the Kremlin, wily Chinese
\n\tCommunists\u2014in true OR fashion\u2014retained their native oppression. They adroitly adapted Marxism totalitarianism to the new necessities of personal initiative
\n\tin the thrall of international commerce. Chinese hegemony survived like a virus, morphing into a revised version capable of continuing to conquer all
\n\tthreats, both internal and external.\n<\/p>\n

\n\tTherefore, in the second decade of the twenty-first century\u2014supposedly a golden opportunity to let freedom ring\u2014China\u2019s star is rising. Mearsheimer
\n\tforesees its triumph. Rather than collapsing under its enduring policy of oppression and persecution, China is on track to supplant the United States
\n\tinfluence throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Meanwhile, Russian leaders have pushed the reset button and booted up a modified totalitarianism that
\n\tfeatures a flat and thin democratic display.\n<\/p>\n

\n\tGlobal powers may march to the drumbeat of offensive realism, but for the reader of the Bible they are unwittingly parading under the banner of prophecy.\n<\/p>\n

\n\tMeeting its bitter end, Mearsheimer\u2019s offensive realism will of course come to a crashing halt at the glorious return of Jesus Christ to this planet\u2014not
\n\tthis time as the crucified Lamb of God but as the conquering King of kings. Yahweh will have had enough of Machiavellianism, Marxism, democratic
\n\tmaterialism, racism, chauvinism, and all the other viral human \u201cisms.\u201d The Bible illustrates Christ\u2019s coming as a divine meteor speeding unnoticed through
\n\tspace but then crashing catastrophically upon this planet (see Daniel 2:34-45). Nearly three millennia ago the teenage captive Daniel described this
\n\tscenario to the Babylonian despot King Nebuchadnezzar, educating him about Someone above the royal pay grade who supervises geopolitics. (You can read
\n\tDaniel\u2019s triple emphasis about celestial sovereignty in Daniel 4:17, 25 and 32).\n<\/p>\n

\n\tWhen Christ returns, those who trust in Him rather than in human salvation will be airlifted from Armageddon. Ultimately, Eden\u2019s Paradise will be restored
\n\there. This earth will be newly re-created and crowned with the New Jerusalem, God\u2019s celestial headquarters.\n<\/p>\n

\n\tIt is an attractive and specific alternative to a \u201crealism\u201d that essentially reacts and cannot set the agenda. Without a hopeful agenda the confusions of
\n\tthe modern world order will quite naturally lead to an increasingly out-of-control scenario. We need hope, not tactics. We need a moral agenda, not a
\n\tMachiavellian dodge.\n<\/p>\n

\n\t1 <\/sup> Robert D. Kaplan, "Why John J. Mearsheimer Is Right (About Some Things),\u201d Atlantic, <\/em>
\n\tJanuary\/February 2012, p. 80.\n<\/p>\n

\n\t2 <\/sup>
\n\tWael Ghonim, the young Google executive who was the face of the revolt in Cairo\u2019s Tahrir Square.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I recently read a fascinating article1 on the forces involved in the rise and fall of nations. Author Robert D. Kaplan introduced the concept of "offensive realism," which posits that global powers attain and maintain such a status not through upholding noble democratic principles, nor through mere force. They conquer international rivals by leveraging power<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[197],"tags":[29],"class_list":["post-6203","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-march-april-2013","tag-march-april-2013"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6203","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6203"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6203\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6203"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6203"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6203"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}