海角大神

When President-elect Joe Biden named Antony Blinken, his longtime foreign-policy aide and a former Obama deputy national security adviser, as his choice to become the next secretary of state, foreign-policy realists shuddered.

Here we go again, they said, with a foreign policy run by idealists and based on American global leadership and promoting democracy and human rights 鈥� a recipe, in their view, for a return to the disastrous interventions of the past two decades.

鈥淚 wish he鈥檇 go with his Joe Biden self who was skeptical of the Afghanistan surge in the Obama administration,鈥� says Michael Desch, professor of international relations and director of Notre Dame International Security Center in Indiana. 鈥淏ut unfortunately, most of the signals are sort of back to the future with a return to the good old days of liberal intervention and American leadership.鈥�

Hadn鈥檛 Mr. Blinken, as recently as last May on CBS, bemoaned the Obama administration鈥檚 failure to 鈥減revent a horrendous loss of life [and] massive displacement鈥� in Syria as 鈥渟omething I will take with me for the rest of my days鈥�?

Some realists, who advocate a foreign policy based on narrowly defined national interests and modest ambitions for America鈥檚 global role, heard their concerns confirmed last week. Jake Sullivan, Mr. Biden鈥檚 choice as his national security adviser, took to Twitter to call out Saudi Arabia over its sentencing to more than five years in prison of prominent women鈥檚 rights activist Loujain al-Hathloul.

But perhaps the sharpest alarm bell was rung by Robert Wright, a self-described progressive realist, who took to his Nonzero Newsletter last month to lament the imminent arrival at the White House of a 鈥減rogressive idealist鈥� foreign-policy team that under President Barack Obama was responsible 鈥渇or much death and suffering and dislocation鈥� in the name of 鈥渟preading democracy and defending human rights鈥� abroad.

鈥淚dealists like Sullivan and Blinken have supported past interventions that made things worse,鈥� said Mr. Wright, referring to Syria, Libya, and U.S. efforts in 2014 to bolster the opposition to a sitting president in Ukraine.

鈥淓volution鈥� in Biden鈥檚 thinking

Mr. Biden appears to have given the realists plenty to fret about. He has spoken and written with soaring language about the world鈥檚 need for American leadership. He has pledged to convene a summit of democracies his first year in office to stand against a rising tide of authoritarianism. And he has pledged to return to a more robust policy of human and political rights promotion.

But at the same time, the incoming president is suggesting he has no interest in implementing a foreign policy that would achieve its goals through military intervention and other means of achieving regime change.

Indeed the clash of Mr. Biden鈥檚 two dominant impulses when it comes to foreign policy 鈥� for America to lead and promote its values around the world, but at the same time to avoid the kind of foreign entanglements George Washington advised against 鈥� is likely to determine, at least in part, the success of a presidency that will have substantial domestic policy challenges.

Some foreign-policy realists are holding to what they say are signs of an 鈥渆volution鈥� in Mr. Biden鈥檚 thinking over the past two decades and are resisting the hand-wringing of some of their colleagues about a new American interventionism.

鈥淲hat I鈥檓 seeing among my fellow restrainers is that most are taking a wait-and-see attitude, and are not being unduly alarmed or apprehensive about what might be coming,鈥� says Daniel Davis, a senior fellow at Defense Priorities, a Washington organization that advocates a strong defense and restrained foreign policy pursuing narrow national interests.

As a senator, Mr. Biden was 鈥渙ne of the biggest cheerleaders of the Iraq war,鈥� yet as vice president was an 鈥渁damant advocate for a significant reduction of the 2009-10 [Afghanistan] troop surge,鈥� he notes.

鈥淚 think Biden has shown he鈥檚 learned from his mistakes,鈥� he adds.

鈥淚dealists鈥� leading the team

Some realists would say Mr. Biden鈥檚 choice of what Mr. Wright calls 鈥減rogressive idealists鈥� to lead his foreign-policy team demonstrates that in fact he hasn鈥檛 changed his thinking much. They admit to a sense of foreboding when they hear Mr. Blinken, the secretary-of-state-designate, saying, as he did last year, that, 鈥淚n Syria, we rightly sought to avoid another Iraq by not doing too much, but we made the opposite error of doing too little.鈥�

But Colonel Davis notes that Mr. Blinken was one of the architects of Mr. Obama鈥檚 drawdown of troops from Iraq, and worked 鈥渂ehind the scenes鈥� in 2009 to limit the Afghanistan surge.

鈥淎t the least you have to say that Tony Blinken has a mixed record, and I鈥檓 not sure he really merits the buzz words of 鈥榣iberal interventionist鈥� that people are pinning on him,鈥� he says.

Moreover, Colonel Davis, like a number of other foreign-policy realists and anti-interventionists, finds solace in the fact that Mr. Biden has not named to prominent national security posts any of the Obama advisers who became known as the Valkyries for pushing military interventions like the 2011 Libya bombardment campaign that toppled Muammar Qaddafi.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 see Biden turning to Susan Rice or Samantha Power to fill his national security team,鈥� he says. 鈥淪o him leaving to one side the architects of those festering wounds, like Libya or Syria or Yemen, suggests he鈥檚 leaning towards restraint.鈥�

Biden has chosen Ms. Rice, who served as Mr. Obama鈥檚 national security adviser, for a top domestic policy post. And some in Washington speculate that Ms. Power, who served as ambassador to the United Nations under Mr. Obama and is known as an adamant defender of human rights promotion, could still be named to a Biden administration post 鈥� perhaps as U.S. Agency for International Development administrator. [Editor's note: On Wednesday, Mr. Biden did indeed name Ms. Power to that post.]

And this week sources with the Biden transition team confirmed that the president-elect has chosen Victoria Nuland, a former NATO ambassador and assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, to fill what is effectively the No. 3 position at State. Ambassador Nuland was a key player in the pro-Western opposition鈥檚 2014 deposing of Ukraine鈥檚 Russian-backed president.

Some foreign-policy experts insist that Mr. Biden won鈥檛 run afoul of realists alone if he starts to let his interventionist impulses dominate. Notre Dame鈥檚 Professor Desch says the president-elect will also have to be prepared for sharp pushback from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party if he shows signs of doing too much 鈥� and in particular of turning to the military to intervene.

鈥淭hose folks are not going to be thrilled about a return to business as usual in foreign policy,鈥� he says.

Mr. Blinken has acknowledged as 鈥渕istakes鈥� some of the U.S. actions under President Obama that progressives most lament 鈥� but he has also warned that the foreign policy progressives advocate too often flirts with isolationism, which he says does not serve America鈥檚 interests.

Call for 鈥渘ew thinking鈥�

The debate between foreign-policy realists and idealists, progressives and traditionalists, will no doubt carry on into the Biden administration. But what concerns some experts most is not so much who wins those debates as it is their inkling that there is a dearth of 鈥渘ew thinking鈥� in the Biden team about America鈥檚 role in the world.

鈥淢ore than anything I鈥檇 say it鈥檚 this [incoming] administration鈥檚 lack of imagination that I find most disconcerting,鈥� says Professor Desch. 鈥淭he general approach of the people Biden is choosing is that Trump broke everything, so our objective is to build back. And while Biden may be comfortable with them,鈥� he adds, 鈥淚鈥檓 not sure how much creative thinking he鈥檒l get from these Obama retreads.鈥�

He鈥檚 not alone in his thinking.

Lawrence Korb, who served as assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, notes that President Reagan resisted stiff pressure to turn to Henry Kissinger, the architect of Richard Nixon鈥檚 vaunted realist foreign policy, but instead took a fresh turn.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 see the people Biden鈥檚 choosing so much as idealists as I do a team of buddies the new president is comfortable with, but that leaves me wondering, where are the thinkers?鈥� says Mr. Korb, now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington.

The problem Professor Desch sees in 鈥渂uilding back鈥� as a guiding principle for foreign policy is that it risks turning to policies and approaches for a world that no longer exists.

鈥淭he better approach is to say, 鈥榃hat does the world of 2021 look like?鈥欌�� he says, 鈥渁nd to answer the question of America鈥檚 role in it based on that.鈥�