The term "Realism" (which seems to be making a major comeback), as used in foreign policy, is the idea that one can overlook a lot of crap on the part of a particular nation or leader if they have something you need badly enough. This something could be natural resources, political alliances, regional "stability," trade, or other things.

Realism was the hallmark of the Cold War. The U.S., and other Western nations, routinely partnered with some of the worst despots and regimes on the planet if it helped us in the larger anti-Soviet picture.

Today, realism can be seen in our cushy treatment of Saudi Arabia, as you point out. Another prime example is communist China, or the current sucking up to communist which is particularly weird when matched with our treatment of Cuba.

Realism is not an easy subject for snap judgements.

I will not dispute that you can make a good case for realism in foreign policy. It is inarguable that, whatever the moral implications, realism often got the job done during the Cold War. That the expansion of the Soviet empire was slowed, and even halted by alliances with thugs.

Our economy is certainly doing a hell of a lot better than it would if we suddenly got hardassed about places like China or the oil-producing countries.

You can also make a case that encouraging economic growth and freedom by trade with oppressive regimes can encourage political freedom as well. Which nations have made more progress in individual freedom? China and Vietnam, or Cuba?

It is also inarguable that oppressive dictatorships are often very stable, too. Yugoslavia had no ethnic wars under communism. What would the Middle East be like if a Shah, allied with the U.S., still ran Iran? Would radical Islam ever have gotten where it is now? Egypt and Turkey use methods oppressive by our standards to squelch the Islamists. Whatever you might say about them, they work.

Saddam didn't really come to power until about 1980, almost exactly when the Shah of Iran fell. I wonder if a strong, modern, stable Iran, again allied with the U.S., would ever have been attacked by Iraq. Or if Iraq would have dared to invade Kuwait.

Again, some hard questions, and no easy answers.

Baker is a class A realist, and whatever comes out of that group working on ideas for Iraq is going to reek of realism: of pretense that Iran isn't really Iran, that Syria isn't really Syria, and that authoritarianism has its good points.

It must be remembered that this kind of "realism" was soundly condemned by liberals and the Left through the entire Cold War. The example most often seen is Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. That is "realism," and if the anti-war people suddenly start advocating it, they have some explaining to do.