"Realist theories tend to uphold that: 1) the international system is in a constant state of antagonism, 2) states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity, 3) the overriding national interest of each state is its national security and survival, 4) relations between states are determined by their levels of power derived primarily from their military and economic capabilities, 5) the interjection of morality and values into international relations causes reckless commitments, diplomatic rigidity, and the escalation of conflict, and 6) international institutions, non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, individuals and other sub-state or trans-state actors are viewed as having little independent influence."

Liberal internationalism is a "foreign policy doctrine that argues that liberal states should intervene in other sovereign states in order to pursue liberal objectives. Such intervention can include both military invasion and humanitarian aid."

"The goal of liberal internationalism is to achieve global structures within the international system that are inclined towards promoting a liberal world order. To that extent, global free trade, liberal economics and liberal political systems are all encouraged. In addition, liberal internationalists are dedicated towards encouraging democracy to emerge globally. Once realized, it will result in a 'peace dividend', as liberal states have relations that are characterized by non-violence, and that relations between democracies is characterized by the democratic peace thesis."

So in looking at these opposing policies, Obama's actions so far in Egypt fit better with that of a liberal internationalist.  I disagree with Douthat when he says that the "administration’s real goal has been to dispense with Mubarak while keeping the dictator’s military subordinates very much in charge...any opening to democracy will be carefully stage-managed by an insider like Omar Suleiman, the former general and Egyptian intelligence chief who’s best known in Washington for his cooperation with the C.I.A.’s rendition program. This isn’t softheaded peacenik dithering. It’s cold-blooded realpolitik."

The common sense approach that Obama is following has both a short term temporary outlook...a transition phase that some might interpret as "realism," but clearly also a longer term goal of a stable democratic government. The pragmatist Obama understands that there will be a power vacuum when Mubarak leaves and that transition must be handled very carefully and diplomatically with non-interference from western countries. The military is the only organization capable of keeping order during the transition so they must be "nurtured" in the meantime.  Cutting off military aid is not nurturing that relationship.

In the other conflicts and wars outside of Egypt, Obama is again taking a pragmatist approach that in many minds could be classified as the better of many bad options that he inherited from eight years of neo-conservatism and a thriving, immense military-industrial machine that needs to be continually fed by acting out the neoconservative interventionist ideology. The Islamophobic fear mongering that followed 9/11 has shifted American popular opinion to the right.  Obama has to deal with that realizing that he is not going to be able to change perceptions overnight. I would dearly like to see him extricate us from Afghanistan, but "the other" that might emerge in Afghanistan with the USA and their allies out is not something that many of us liberals fully understand. I believe Obama has weighed the pros and cons, and is by necessity having to continue with some of the "realist" ideology for the time being. He fully understands that getting out is far more difficult than getting in, and he has made statements to that effect in both his campaign and presidency.