The international relations policy of Realpolitik can seem confusing, conflicted, and at times self-defeating. However, the policy does what it is supposed to do better than any other; it protects the interests of the United States. If little consistency in foreign policy can be perceived, it's because there hasn't been any. Realpolitik has steered the nation away from total allegiance to international organizations such as the U.N., is against military intervention in ethnic wars such as Bosnia, opposes nation-building in such places as Somalia, and is totally focused on constructing a missile-defense shield to ward off foreign threats to the homeland. The policy's answer to any conflict is how will this protect and forward the interests of the United States? If the answer is it does not, then no action should be taken. Realpolitik is the strongest policy for international relations because it allows for the U.S. to concentrate on conflicts that matter most to the country.
             September 11, 2001, reinforced White House unilateralism. The U.S. attacked al Quada and overthrew the Taliban government in Afghanistan alone, with help from Britain. It did the job efficiently, largely without involving NATO or the U.N. An advantage of Realpolitik is that it sees international organizations such as the U.N. and NATO as a tool to further world interests that the U.S. does not have the time to focus on. For example, intervention in ethnic and civil wars should not be the duty of the United States, groups like the United Nations can be utilized to carry out such missions. The President and his White House foreign policy advisers appear to be on a learning curve. As the nation come up against global realities, it is shifting away from the hard ideological positions toward a more practical approach to world problems. The crises in Iraq and North Korea, each in its own way, have forced the Bush Administration to take a more traditional, multilater...