Airstrip One

Do they mean us?

In the Nikolas Gvosdev of "In the National Interest" starts off one of his articles:

In the National Interest describes itself as America's only realist weekly (although, in the interests of full disclosure, I must reveal that a British foreign policy website disputes our realist credentials, because of our willingness to entertain alternative points of view).

He may be refering to this article when I complained:

this is not the real thing - after all the top item is an interview with the terribly unrealistic Richard Perle while the editor Adam Garfinkle (who merely risks a "tilt toward the realist side") argues that Realists and Neo-conservatives are really just Republicans who have different temperaments towards foreign policy.

I should be rather chuffed (although surely "full disclosure" would entail naming the website, if not linking to it). In fact I am rather chuffed.

Let's see. In the first issue Adam Garfinkle says of Neo-Conservatives and Realists, "Ultimately, our differences come down mostly to temperament." Now Nikolas Gvosdev says that all they were guilty of was a "willingness to entertain alternative points of view".

So now Neo-Conservatism is an alternative to realism rather than realism with a headache. Progress my purist friends, progress.

Oh and the actual article is quite good too.