The world at large and the USA citizens in particular are perplexed as to what is there in the heart and mind of Barack Obama , the current USA President as regards his international policies. Everyone seems to be puzzled - how come Obama received Nobel prize for peace in 2009 and still he is continuing with the ongoing USA military role both in Iraq and Afghanistan? All those who supported him to become the USA President, in the hope that he would quickly call the American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan back home once he assumed powers in the White House seem to be dismayed. So, where has all the idealism of Obama evaporated? Has Obama become a realist in the sense that he has realised it to be necessary to continue with the present American military roles in both these countries?
Well, to my mind, Obama unwittingly is following the policy - BE NEITHER AN IDEALIST NOR A REALIST OR A PRAGMATIST, BUT BE AN IDEALISTICALLY REALIST AND REALISTICALLY IDEALIST PRAGMATIST [ IRRIP ].
Being idealist totally involves ignoring the realities of the given situation and the person perceives everything from the angle of full idealism. On the other hand, being realist totally means the person does not care a fig for any element of idealism.The totally pragmatist person is concerned neither with any idealism nor any realism. Such a person does not mind achieving objectives even if it meant casting aside/trampling upon any idealist necessities/aspirations of the players involved.
Also, such a person tends to ignore realities around, with the achieving of his/her own objective at any cost being the uppermost priority in his/her mind.But, the person adopting the IRRIP approach does not ignore the realities around and does not give up all of the idealism. Such a person tries to achieve his/her ideal/s by placing such ideal/s correctly in the context of the existing realities.
Obama seems to be following the above explained IRRIP approach on the foreign policy front in the context of Iraq and Afghanistan. Its true Obama had during his electoral race for the White House idealistically promised a quick pull out of the American troops from these two war ravaged countries. But, then he seems to have realised the realities of the situation after assuming the office as the President of the USA that its not possible to pull out American troops immediately without jeopardising the national interests of the USA and cause of the world-peace. He could not do a FULLY IDEALIST VP SINGH ACT. VP Singh had on becoming the Prime Minister of India quickly withdrawn the Indian troops from the trouble-torn SriLanka to fulfil the promise he had made during his election campaign. Both these cases are altogether different necessiting different treatments.
Obama no doubt realised the existing ground realities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, he has tried to achieve his idealism in terms of trying to fulfil the promise of the American Troops pull out from these two countries.But, the element of realism has perceptibly resulted into the delayed time table for withdrawal of the American troops. Obama's this IRRIP approach is certainly better than what any Republican President in the White House would have done - He/She would have displayed full realist inclination and would in all probability have continued with the presence of the American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for an undefined period!
Thakur Sher Singh Parmar
Well, to my mind, Obama unwittingly is following the policy - BE NEITHER AN IDEALIST NOR A REALIST OR A PRAGMATIST, BUT BE AN IDEALISTICALLY REALIST AND REALISTICALLY IDEALIST PRAGMATIST [ IRRIP ].
Being idealist totally involves ignoring the realities of the given situation and the person perceives everything from the angle of full idealism. On the other hand, being realist totally means the person does not care a fig for any element of idealism.The totally pragmatist person is concerned neither with any idealism nor any realism. Such a person does not mind achieving objectives even if it meant casting aside/trampling upon any idealist necessities/aspirations of the players involved.
Also, such a person tends to ignore realities around, with the achieving of his/her own objective at any cost being the uppermost priority in his/her mind.But, the person adopting the IRRIP approach does not ignore the realities around and does not give up all of the idealism. Such a person tries to achieve his/her ideal/s by placing such ideal/s correctly in the context of the existing realities.
Obama seems to be following the above explained IRRIP approach on the foreign policy front in the context of Iraq and Afghanistan. Its true Obama had during his electoral race for the White House idealistically promised a quick pull out of the American troops from these two war ravaged countries. But, then he seems to have realised the realities of the situation after assuming the office as the President of the USA that its not possible to pull out American troops immediately without jeopardising the national interests of the USA and cause of the world-peace. He could not do a FULLY IDEALIST VP SINGH ACT. VP Singh had on becoming the Prime Minister of India quickly withdrawn the Indian troops from the trouble-torn SriLanka to fulfil the promise he had made during his election campaign. Both these cases are altogether different necessiting different treatments.
Obama no doubt realised the existing ground realities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, he has tried to achieve his idealism in terms of trying to fulfil the promise of the American Troops pull out from these two countries.But, the element of realism has perceptibly resulted into the delayed time table for withdrawal of the American troops. Obama's this IRRIP approach is certainly better than what any Republican President in the White House would have done - He/She would have displayed full realist inclination and would in all probability have continued with the presence of the American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for an undefined period!
Thakur Sher Singh Parmar
