No Need to Hide in the Grass
Step Up and Donate
Sponsoring FReepers leapfrog0202 and another person will contribute $10
Each time a new monthly donor signs up!
Get more bang for your buck
Sign up today
Come back, Lazamataz! We miss you.
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.
And I will vote for this pretty moron....just like I voted for that hollywood actor who knew nothing about politics...I think his name was Ronald Reagan.
Very interesting.
What pray tell were the "vital American interests" when she was calling for a Libyan no fly zone?
I also don't see a peep in their about securing either a declaration of war, or authorization from Congress.
Does she think that No Fly Zone didn't need Congressional approval?
Sounds good to me.
Count me in!
For the initial concerns, check past news stories from a great number of western countries. However, she wasn't alone in this call for extremely limited action, which was then grossly exceeded by the Obama administration, and against which she then protested.
I also don't see a peep in their about securing either a declaration of war, or authorization from Congress.
Well then I guess she's talking about the powers inherent in the presidency to use armed forces short of a declaration of war, right? You are aware such powers not only exist, but are crucial for a president to use properly in order to prevent the need for congressionally approved, open war - right?
Does she think that No Fly Zone didn't need Congressional approval?
Do you think it does? Why?
You're right - she was right there with Samntha Powers and Hilary Clinton, two other great American conservative thinkers - oh, wait.
"Well then I guess ..."
I stopped reading at "I guess". It's not a very complete "doctrine" if it leaves people to guess, now is it?
"You are aware such powers not only exist, but are crucial for a president to use properly in order to prevent the need for congressionally approved, open war - right? "
What I am aware of is the War Powers Resolution of 1973. I didn't hear Palin calling for a resolution for Libya, did you. How exactly is a no-fly zone over Libya - ""a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
I'm all ears.
"Do you think it does? Why?"
You bet I do, especially when it doesn't meet the criteria outlined in the War Powers Resolution.
Good that she is getting rid of Johnny McInsanes RINO sell outs.
Do you believe the War Powers Resolution is Constitutional?
You forgot to preface that with "In my opinion". It's pretty clear that it's still good law.
"Every President since it was passed has treated it as such. "
Yes, that's the problem and that's how we end up entangling ourselves in places we have absolutely no business being - Kosovo, Somalia, LIBYA etc, etc.
Clinton has made it pretty clear that if wasn't for the abortion that was Operation Gothic Serpant, he would have unilaterally intervened in Rawanda. Wouldn't that have been swell?
So, if we have presidents that ignore US law for long enough, those laws become dead letters, or something?
Maybe Posse Comitatus is unconstitutional too? Should presidents just ignore that as well?
We need to get back to some basics. If there's not enough popular support to get a congressional authorization to involve ourselves in some military engagement in a faraway land, then we shouldn't do it. We have got to STOP indulging a President's personal whim to play world police.
Her 15 minutes of fame have expired, and she’s only in this for the money. I know because CNN, MSNBC, and NYT told me so, several times a day for two years. What I don’t understand is why she would waste her money on a foreign policy adviser; only a candidate would bother, and every democrat with access to a microphone assures us repeatedly that she can’t win and for our own good we should choose a moderate.
See above - I believe that it is just as constitutional as the Posse Comitatus Act. If Congress can limit what the president can do as commander-in-chief domestically it can also limit what he does internationally, right?
The Resolution gives to the president pretty broad latitude for employing force without congressional authorization. What it doesn't do, is give him a blank check where clearly defined American interests aren't at stake. I think all things considered, that's a pretty could compromise and an effective check on executive power.
LOL. You’re like a friggin’ rottweiler who won’t let go of a turkey leg!
It’s best to avoid and yard where he’s fenced in! /s
Ya know, I won’t vote for her in the primaries; if she’s on the ticket for the general, I can pull the lever for her pretty easy though (c’mon, her vs. “a democrat”? no question). What I don’t like is her shift into “polishing” her image for general consumption. Ever sine the “retard” debacle several months back and her talking about the “r-word” at some press conference; blech...More and more she is having to re-adjust her positions as she compromises more and more on WHO SHE IS. I loved the un-polished Sarah Palin much better. Not sure what I am witnessing exactly at this point. A run to the center or new RINO in the making.
I call it the way I see it.
But, I'll be fair about it. And, to be fair, I'll admit that every other possible candidate I've heard discuss this, got it dead wrong - except for (Lord forbid) Ron Paul.
In fact, most haven't even commented about it, so I'll give more credit to Palin for at least having a position.
I could never vote for Ron Paul for many reasons, but the biggest reason is he takes things too far, never wanting to get involved anywhere militarily. But, we need to have a return to our "classical liberalism" roots, and shake ourselves free of this neocon mishigas.
Please! where has she shifted or readjusted her positions? don’t give me what OldD*ickHand or PDSer said or what a LSM source said. Give me specific please? thanks
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.