Why does Kaplan begin a book about political geography with so many ideas and e

Why does Kaplan begin a book about political geography with so many ideas and events that signal a relative decline in American foreign policy since the Cold War?
Why is he framing a book on political geography in terms of political idealism and realism? Can you tell whether he sides with the idealists or realists? Why is Kelly’s goal for the text useful? Based on what you know so far, what can a more objective definition of geopolitics offer the debate on US grand strategy and security?
Consider some implications of this module’s reading for a Christian World View. What does it mean for example, for a Christian to choose idealism over realism—or vice versa—as a guide to US foreign policymaking? A realist, for example, embraces the ‘dirty hands problem’, understood as the need for the US to accept a certain amount of suffering in the world, (famine, even genocide, etc.) due to various constraints on its ability to intervene, whether for diplomatic, resource-based, or technical reasons, but that doing so allows the US to avoid, survive, deter, or defeat more powerful enemies another day? Or do you believe that where there is a Christian will, there is always a way to avoid choosing between the lesser evils described above? Not an easy question for sure, but Kaplan lays this tension out through the story of Wieseltier’s criticism of Bill Clinton in the 1990s Bosnia crisis, so it is not a mere academic question.

How to create Testimonial Carousel using Bootstrap5

Clients' Reviews about Our Services