Palin outlines doctrine for use of force, picks new foreign policy adviser

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.

Where do you get the bizarre idea that acts of Congress are presumptively valid? What does that even mean? Do you think the President is bound to obey any order Congress may issue unless he can get a note from the Supreme Court excusing him? Are you at all familiar with the phrase “separation of powers?”

The Supreme Court doesn't have the franchise on reading the Constitution. Each branch of government is responsible for exercising its own power constitutionally. No branch can wait for another’s permission before doing its constitutional duty.

You obviously know nothing about the constitutional system and nothing about the law. Here's a brief primer. The President has to decide for himself what his constitutional duties are. If the President concludes that his duty conflicts with the War Powers Act he is bound by his oath to ignore the War Powers Act. Congress can impeach him or it can use the power of the purse to bring him into line. When the President flouts the War Powers Act and Congress doesn't respond that is a constitutional precedent every bit as authoritative as any Supreme Court opinion. It means the law is invalid. A series of such precedents settles the matter beyond the possibility of rational dispute and we have a series of such precedents.

Of course Presidents get authorization for the use of force. They would be foolish to undertake any serious military action without consolidating political support for it. They are very careful, however, never to suggest that they are required to seek authorization under the law. They frequently consult with Congress “in accord with” but not “pursuant to” the War Powers Act. That is precisely because they are unwilling to set any precedent that might contradict the history which establishes so clearly that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.

You are way, way out of your depth here. Read more, write less.

I think Palin may have been reaing up on John Quincy Adams in the last few months, Her imagery here is quite similar to his famous Independence Day Oration in 1821. Palin says “America is not looking for dragons to slay”,while Adams historic line is “America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” There are other similar passages . Like Adams or not, he provided the first truly coherent vision of America and its relation with the world. Palin could have done far worse in finding inspiration for hers.

"Where do you get the bizarre idea that acts of Congress are presumptively valid? "

Oh, I don't know - law school maybe. But hey, don't take my word for it, listen to what Sam Alito said about presumptively constitutional of acts of congress in his Supreme Court confirmation testimony.

"Acts of Congress are presumptively constitutional and I don’t think that saying that is just words.
I think that means something. Members of Congress take an oath to support the Constitution and I think that the presumption of constitutionality means a lot. And I think that judgments that are reached by the legislative branch in the form of findings of fact, for example, are entitled to great respect because of the structure of our government, the fact that the basic policy decisions are supposed to be made by the legislative branch and carried out by the executive branch, and also for the practical reason or the functional reason that Congress is in a better position to evaluate conditions in our country and conditions in our society and to make findings and to determine what’s appropriate to deal with the social and economic problems that we face. So I would certainly approach the question of determining whether an act of Congress is constitutional with a heavy presumption in favor of the constitutionality of what Congress has done. Now, ultimately, Marbury v. Madison decided the question that when a case or controversy comes before the Supreme Court, and the constitutionality of an act of Congress is challenged, it is the duty of the court to decide the question. Unless we were going to go back to 1819, then that’s the practice that the federal courts have to follow. But they should always do that with an appreciation of their limited role and the role that the legislature is supposed to play. "emphasis added

Where did Alito get such a "foreign" concept (at least to you)? Well, I'm guessing he has read a number of Supreme Court decisions, like this one written by Rhenquist, and this one, that said...

...The 1992 Cable Act, like all Acts of Congress, is presumptively constitutional. As such, it "should remain in effect pending a final decision on the merits by this Court...."

"You are way, way out of your depth here. Read more, write less."

Whatever my depth may or may not be, and whatever I read or don't read, you've pretty clearly established that whatever you write, although thoroughly entertaining (but not in the good way) should be ignored for merit - violently.

"Who, in your world, is more qualified than Governor Palin, and why?"

Pawlenty, Daniels, Christie even Huckabee and Bachmann. The "why" is simple - none of them are afraid of the media, to include the hostile media. Palin, OTOH, never goes anywhere to speak to anyone that isn't named Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity or her favorite, Greta Van Sustern. If you're afraid of a journalist, you're not qualified to run the country.

Marco Rubio hasn't been in the Senate for more than 6-months, and yet, he walked into Meet the Press on Sunday morning and OWNED David Gregory. He was clear, concise and compelling. Palin, on her best day, doesn't reach any of those measures.

When Palin appears on a program that isn't a Fox property, and does half as well as the freshman senator from FL, maybe she'll merit some consideration, but until then - no thanks.

Your prejudice is less than commendable, and your apparently intentional mischaracterization of Governor Palin's media appearances speaks volumes, but about you, not her.

There has never, in American history, been a more media-assassinated, ad-hominem laced character-assaulted individual than Sarah Palin. The she might, in turn, limit the opportunity that those media organs have to repeat their proven pattern of dissembling and assault upon her is not just her right, it is her due.

If that flimsily constructed, fallacious straw man of yours is alone that which you feel better-qualifies anyone else, then you have decisively made my point:

Not only in there no other candidate more qualified than Sarah Palin, there is no other candidate nearly as qualified as Governor Sarah Palin. She has endured with grace, class, a steel spine and truly leviathan strength the most viscious assaults on her person, her record, her positions and even her children, yet she shines through it all with an unshakeable resolve that one could only hope would be a crown worn by every person ever elected to lead this nation.

Your inability to appreciate these uniquely qualifying assets which she alone possesses does indeed disqualify one individual from a deserving place in this discussion, but that individual is not Governor Palin. Sir.

;-\

If you went to law school it must have been the sort that advertises on matchbook covers. Nothing you cite is remotely relevant to this discussion. On second thought maybe you shouldn't read more. You don't seem to understand what you read.

All of your authorities deal with the proper exercise of the judicial function. They have nothing whatever to do with the scope of executive authority which is what we are talking about.

Of course judges shouldn't strike down statutes lightly or ignore the congressional judgment of constitutional validity that is implied every time a statute passes. That has nothing to do with the bizarre and ignorant idea that a President is bound to obey any congressional pronouncement unless and until the Supreme Court tells him he needn't.

There is no shadow of an argument for that proposition. There is no precedent, judicial or otherwise for it. It is at odds with the separation of powers. It is, in sum a lunatic, tin-foil helmet paranoid fantasy masquerading as a legal argument. If you do have a law degree you should be profoundly ashamed, and your teachers should be more so.

Your prejudice is less than commendable, and your apparently intentional mischaracterization of Governor Palin's media appearances speaks volumes, but about you, not her.

If that flimsily constructed, fallacious straw man of yours is alone that which you feel better-qualifies anyone else, then you have decisively made my point:

;-\

"It has been noted that her contract with Fox prevents her from interviewing with other networks. "

Bull-O-Nee. Really, that is so incredibly stupid, it's insulting.

Two weeks ago, you couldn't turn on the TV without seeing Huckabee all over it, even on The View - same FNC contract - hell, he even has his own FNC show. Gingrich, the entire time he was with FNC as a contributor - EXACTLY like Palin - was on MTP & the Today Show, This Week, CBS and even CNN. Bill O'Reilly is on the Tonight Show, the Today Show, The Letterman Show ALL THE TIME - I'm pretty sure he has a FNC contgract.

Palin may need to get permission to appear on other networks, just like I'm sure Huckabee, and anyone else who cashes a FNC paycheck and like Gingrich & Santorum used to need to do, but it's WHOLLY UNBELIEVABLE to suggest that permission wouldn't be granted - not when it's CLEARLY granted for other FOX anchors and contributors ALL THE TIME.

Now you deign to imply that, of those who appreciate Governor Palin's role in supporting a better-than 65% win rate among Freshmen Congressmen, these fine conservatives are delusional?

There you go again, Chief. You make the most absurd statement possible, and then call those to whom you refer "absurd." That is a tactic straight out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals." Not to mention a mental faculty (read "lack thereof") straight out of Ken Kesey's "One Flew Over A Cuckoo's Nest."

No wonder you don't admire Palin. You're a barking-mad lunatic.

8^D

Since you ask — I’m admitted to practice in three states. I graduated from Harvard Law School. I was a Law Review editor. I’ve been a law professor and a DOJ attorney as well as a private practitioner. I’ve taught Constitutional Law and Federal Courts in two (accredited) American law schools. I contributed to a major Federal Courts casebook.

But my credentials are beside the point. The important thing is that I know what I’m talking about and Old Deck Hand doesn’t. He’s incoherent and therefore self-refuting.

"They have nothing whatever to do with the scope of executive authority which is what we are talking about."

I see. So, the Judiciary and I would presume the Legislature are bound by constitutional and statutory law, but the Executive isn't, or something - at least when it comes to making war. What a novel approach. John Yoo would be so proud, as would Barack Obama circa 2011. He has made it a habit, much like Bush, to issue post-legislative statements that he isn't bound by the Act of Congress he just signed into law because he's special, or whatnot.

Are you sure you don't work in Obama's White House? Really, you'd fit right in.

If you're through "educating me" about the primacy of Executive power, you might want to read what Hamilton had to say in Federalist 69 with respect to this issue of Presidential war-making power, where he in part says...

“In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature.”

Not enough? How about what Madison said in a letter to Jefferson the matter...

"The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature."

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.