Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Posted on 05/03/2011 3:33:41 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Politics being a funny beast, we tend to readily accept the idea of a retired state governor, sometime pundit, and non-candidate for president having a “foreign policy adviser.” Ben Smith of Politico reports that Palin this weekend unloaded what he calls the “neocon” advisers who have been with her since the 2008 campaign (when she was assigned them by the McCain organization), in favor of Hoover fellow and political author Peter Schweizer, who wrote two seminal volumes on Reagan’s handling of the Cold War (Victory and Reagan’s War), and writes at Breitbart’s Big Peace. (H/t: Israpundit)
This is informative news – and on the whole, good news. As Israpundit observes, Palin outlined a doctrine for the use of force in her speech to military families in Denver Monday evening (2 May). He quotes the following passage:
A lesson here then for effective use of force, as opposed to sending our troops on missions that are ill-defined. And it can be argued that our involvement elsewhere, say, in Libya, is an example of a lack of clarity.
See, these are deadly serious questions that we must ask ourselves when we contemplate sending Americans into harm’s way. Our men and women in uniform deserve a clear understanding of U.S. positions on such a crucial decision.
I believe our criteria before we send our young men and women, America’s finest, into harm’s way, I believe that our criteria should be spelled out clearly when it comes to the use of our military force. I can tell you what I believe that criteria should be. I can tell you what it should be in five points:
First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake, period.
Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not send our military and stretch out the mission with an open-ended and ill-defined mission. Nation-building, a nice idea in theory, but it’s not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.
And third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending our troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly, concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent to battle. Period.
Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side by our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and command of the American officers.
And fifth, sending our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual.
When it makes sense, when it’s appropriate, we’ll provide them with support and help them win their own freedom. We’re not indifferent to the cause of human rights or the desire for freedom. We’re always on the side of both. But we can’t fight every war. We can’t undo every injustice around the world.
But with strength, and clarity in those five points, we’ll make for a safer, more prosperous, more peaceful world. Because as the U.S. leads by example, as we support freedom across the globe, we’re gonna prove that free and healthy countries, they don’t wage war on other free and healthy countries.
The stronger we are, the stronger and more peaceful the world will be under our example.
Many volumes could be written on the distinctions between the prevailing ideas on the use of force overseas, but this passage of Palin’s speech, combined with her taking on Peter Schweizer as an adviser, argues for a more Reaganesque than progressive-activist view. I don’t find the “neocon” label particularly useful; Reagan was advised by neocons from the original group dubbed with that label in the 1970s, and so were both Bushes, but this did not make for perfect consonance in their approach to using force overseas. “Neocon” had a particular meaning when it was first coined to describe people of a generally liberal background, especially on social and domestic issues, who held hawkish positions on the Cold War. That meaning has long since gone by the wayside.
To call something “neocon” now is not to put it in the context of any consistent thread in policy. Bush 41, for example, used force for regime-change in Panama in 1989, but didn’t use it to regime-change Saddam in 1991. He restricted himself to evicting Saddam’s forces from Kuwait. He also dispatched military force to supervise the delivery of aid to Somalis, with no intention of resolving the chaotic political situation there – this last enterprise an open-ended use of force on the progressive-activist model.
Reagan used force to regime-change Grenada, ironically in the middle of dealing with the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which was a consequence of improperly scoping the purpose and requirements of force in a particular situation. Again, the latter (the Marine barracks debacle) is more characteristic of the progressive-activist model – which is what is currently developing in Libya.
Bush 43 used overwhelming force for regime-change in Iraq, and induced regime-change in Afghanistan with less than overwhelming force, but both were cases of politically justifying absolute regime-change and pursuing it without temporizing. Unifying Afghanistan under new rule has proven to be the insoluble problem in the aftermath, although the regime-change of Iraq has been much more heavily criticized throughout.
Which of these episodes were the result of “neocon” policies? There are plenty of people today who call the Libya intervention “neocon,” because it is expeditionary and related only indirectly to US security. Samantha Power and Susan Rice wouldn’t thank those pundits for calling their humanitarian intervention a “neocon” operation.
Schweizer is a fan of Reagan’s approach, which had no compunction about trying to undermine oppressive governments, but did so by supporting freedom movements where they were indigenous, and arming the insurgents under Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. The commitment of US force was a matter of coming to blows very rarely under Reagan: besides invading Grenada, Reagan conducted a reprisal against Libya in 1986 after the Berlin nightclub bombing, and another one against Iran in 1988 for mining the Persian Gulf and inflicting mine damage on USS Samuel B Roberts (FFG-58). The US armed forces had a high and very active profile during the Reagan years, but the actual use of force was considered necessary very seldom.
I tend to share Israpundit’s view that Schweizer’s advice will involve the sparing and summary use of force – in a shooting role. If you haven’t read his books on the Reagan approach – a comprehensive one that emphasized political and economic campaigns against the Soviet Union – I can highly recommend them. Meanwhile, compare Palin’s five points to the “Weinberger Doctrine,” a rubric that played a major role in US decisions about the use of force in Desert Storm.
As is typical of her, Palin is talking in the terms on which we need to be carrying on the public discussion of national security, our national interests, and interventions overseas. There has been a very long and extensive national dialogue on these topics over the last 100 years; we have never settled most questions as if there were a single answer. Palin – alone among potential GOP candidates – is harking back to the philosophical discussions launched by presidents and candidates like Reagan, Goldwater, Adlai Stevenson (agree with him or not, he launched a substantive debate that colored Democratic positions for the next 40 years), Wilson, and Theodore Roosevelt.
I believe people intuit the need for this debate, as overseas interventions seem to be stalemated in Afghanistan and Libya, and the world begins to behave as if there is no US power. Palin apparently recognizes the need to talk about fundamentals – and love her or hate her, I don’t see anyone else out there doing it.
Outside the world of black helicopters and sinister plots involving fluoridation, the War Powers Act is a punch line, not the basis of a serious argument.
I thought a month or so ago Palin was advocating a no-fly zone in Libya. In fact I think it was the Washington Times or NY Post that called it the “Palin Doctrine”. How do these words square with that? Seems to me Palin is coming around to Michele Bachmann’s position.
That phrase doesn't mean what you think it does.
Even you can't be that dense, sport.
Yes some future Congress could, in theory, try to revive it. France could restore the Bourbon monarchy and Russia could bring back the Romanovs, but it isn't going to happen. Unless you want to be a laughingstock on a par with French and Russian monarchists, it's time to give up this weird obsession with the War Powers Act. To be blunt, you have no idea what you are talking about.
You should have stopped right there. Everything that comes after, is wrong.
In this country, acts of Congress are presumptively constitutional. The Supreme Court doesn't have to validate any law the Legislature passes. Put another way, laws enacted by Congress are constitutional until the Supreme Court says that they aren't. But, you knew that already, right?
Whether or not the Court would hear a challenge to the War Power Resolution, or dismiss it as a nonjusticiable political question, until the Supreme Court says it's not constitutional, it is constitutional.
"It is a dead letter."
There you go again, using phrases you don't understand.
"To be blunt, you have no idea what you are talking about."
Whatever I do or do not know, it's pretty clear that we've established you don't have the frist clue about American jurisprudence.
Lastly, if the War Power Act didn't mean anything, as you suggest, why then did George HW Bush get an authorization for force in 1991, and why did his son get one 10-years later?
The question of the War Powers Act is not a legal one, it is a philosophical one. I do NOT want another White House occupant who believes the US Armed Forces is their own private diplomatic tool. Considering most founders didn't even want a standing army, it's unlikely to believe almost any of them would agree to the carte blanche presidents have exercised in their application of global military force.
If you two don’t like women in positions of power, be it for religious reasons or something else, why don’t you just come out and say it? I know I’d respect you more for it than this ankle-biting that you do on so many Palin threads.
If I don't like women in position of power? What?
If Michelle Bachmann is on the ballot by the time the primary gets to FL, there's a decent chance that's who I'm voting for since Barbour has decided not to run.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
She finally tossed the Soros-employed Washington lobbyist. Hurrah.
Since a House member has almost no chance of being nominated or elected, that’s a safe stance to take and shields you from what I just said. Funny, that’s what pissant used to say. Remind me what happened to him.
If you don't like my position on the painfully unqualified Sarah Palin, that's your problem, not mine.
After the Battle of New Orleans, Andrew Jackson was charged with violating the constitution. For he declared martial law, impressed every able body man in New Orleans, armed, and ordered them to get their butts down on the levee and fight. He was tried, convicted and had to pay a sizable fine. Later IIRC, he said he would do same again, for in time of war, the constitution was not a suicide pact.
City Council, Mayor, Energy Commission Chairwoman, Governor, NYT best-selling author, highly-paid speaker, News analyst, had her own TV show, listened to by hundreds of millions of people, almost killed ObamaCare single-handedly and changed the House of Represenatives from Democrat to Republican, as well as getting other candidates elected at all different levels. Yeah, I see your point... LOL
Uh, just saw Michele Bachmann on Fox say almost verbatim some of the things Palin espoused when she proffered her
foreign policy doctrine last night in CO.
The War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional.
The Constitution states the powers of the president and congress when it comes to commanding, declaring and funding wars.
The War Powers Resolution of course can't change powers as defined in the Constitution.
Ping!
This position is pretty close to Reagan’s.
Well said. And precisely the same point Palin made in her 5 point "Doctrinal" outlay. She has very recently replaced her foreign policy advisers. I am glad she did.
If this shift is responsible for her shift in policy constraint, I say "Well done." All presidents have advisers, as none can be stand-alone experts on every minutiae-strewn subject on the planet, nor is it either realistic or fair for us to expect them to be.
If her new advisor has affected her position, that, too is a good sign. A president who is incapable of changing their position is often a president who refuses to listen to sound advice, or who is more concerned with "Admitting they were wrong" than they are with "Getting it right."
Palin, in her choice of Schweizer (sp?), and in her 5 Point "Doctrine," certainly seems to be getting it right. And that's a very good thing, too, as she will be our next president. Anyone who disagrees with either of these two last statements is simply unaware of the breadth and depth of her brilliance, and her base.
;-\
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.