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.

Nothing you say or cite has anything to do with this conversation.

Whether the King had more authority than the President in 1789 is irrelevant. That Congress has considerable authority with respect to war making is not in dispute. I will try, one more time, to acquaint you with some basic facts about our constitutional order.

All branches of government are bound by the law, but all of them have to determine for themselves what the law requires. The Constitution is the supreme law and the President cannot be bound by a statute that, in his view, conflicts with the Constitution. Just as courts decide what the Constitution means for purposes of determining their own rules of decision and Congress decides what the Constitution means for purposes of determining what laws it can properly pass, the President determines what the Constitution means for purposes of performing the executive function. He decides what laws he can properly execute and what laws he cannot properly execute because they are unconstitutional.

Every President claims this prerogative. There is nothing controversial about it and it doesn’t amount to executive supremacy. The executive isn’t supreme, but neither is the judiciary and nor is the legislature. That is what separation of powers means.

Where, as with the War Powers Act, the judiciary will never weigh in on a question of constitutionality, the President’s responsibility to interpret the Constitution for himself is at it’s clearest. He isn’t going to get any advice from the Court, so he’s on his own. Congress and the President have to settle matters between themselves, and in this case they did so long ago.

Presidents have repeatedly concluded that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional and Congress has repeatedly failed to vindicate it. As a result the question is now closed. The War Powers Act is unconstitutional. Nothing in our constitutional law is more settled and citing the Federalist Papers for general pronouncements about war powers under the Constitution is just silly.

I gather you don’t like this. You would like to see a revolution in constitutional law that made the War Powers Act relevant again. Fine, but it isn’t going to happen. Come back from Never Never Land and deal with present realities.

Gregory is stupid enough to continue the mindless assault, Palin has already made Putin blink, and Vlad knows better than to test her again.

While I will not divulge sensitive specifics in this open forum, I would ask you to remember that, as Governor of Alaska, Palin was CIC of Alaska's Air National Guard, part of whose strategic tasking was (is) protecting American airspace from incursions by "roaming" russian military aircraft.

During Palin's tenure there were attempts (2) by The Rodina to test her mettle as Alaska's Commander in Chief, and it almost cost Vladidmir two Mig-29's and a high-altitude surveillance craft (similar to our AWACS). Putin never tried again while Sarah was at the helm.

I believe the specifics of some if not all of this will become public knowledge during the coming election, but that's not my call to make.

;-\

"...but I still don't see any explanation as to why Sarah Palin is afraid of a sit-down interview with someone..."

And you won't see one, because Governor Palin isn't "afraid" to sit down with anybody. Neither does she enjoy the luxury of time to waste on people who have repeatedly proven themselves to be partisan lie-bot agents provocateur of this felonious Quisling Administration.

Capisce, douche-bag?

;-\

"Gregory is stupid enough to continue the mindless assault"

And, apparently Palin is too feckless to counter those "assaults". You're proving my point, and you don't even know it.

"Governor of Alaska, Palin was CIC of Alaska's Air National Guard, part of whose strategic tasking was (is) protecting American airspace from incursions by "roaming" russian military aircraft."

Look, you might find some other rube to believe this, but this idiotic story has absolutely no credibility with me. Why? Because as a former military legal officer, I fully understand the principle of "national command authority" as defined by the Goldwater-Nichols act and as it specifically relates to our national air sovereignty. The ONLY organization that is legally tasked to ensure that sovereignty is United States Northern Command(NORTHCOM), and it's subservient commands, NORAD and First Air Force(1 AF-AFNORTH)

State Governors, to include our "hero" Sarah Palin, are NOT included in that national command authority, in ANY way, at any time, ever. They do not have ANY command authority (or influence) in the operations that ensure our national air sovereignty, EVER. ALL command authority comes from one place, and one place ONLY, the Unified Combatant Command - NORTHCOM in this particular instance, and they - per the Goldwater-Nichols Act, ONLY take direction from the President of the United States through the Secretary of Defense. Period.

All assets, to include ALL national guard assets, assigned to NORTHCOM/First Air Force and engaged in air sovereignty missions are at the SOLE command of NORTHCOM. When are governors consulted in this command process? NEVER. But hey, don't take my word for it, just read the Goldwater-Nichols Act. Russians have been violating American air space for DECADES. And after a 15-year or so respite from these incursions, they started up again. How did we respond? Well, listen to what Adm. James A. Winnefeld, Jr., head of the U.S.-Canadian North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), said in an interview

Your story is ridiculously absurd. Sarah Palin has NEVER "faced down" Vladimir Putin, or any Russian leader. Some of the crap you people come up with is really breathtaking.

Question: What is America's first line of missile interceptor defense that protects the entire United States?

Answer: 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard.

Question: What is the ONLY National Guard unit on permanent active duty?

Answer: 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard

Question: Who is the Commander in Chief of the 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard?

Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska

Question: What U.S. governor is routinely briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counter terrorism?

Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska

Question: What U.S. governor has a higher classified security rating than any candidate for the Democrat Party?

Answer: Governor Sarah Palin

You really don't know quite as much as you'd like everyone here to believe you do, do you?

;-\

"You really don't know quite as much as you'd like everyone here to believe you do, do you? "

Honestly, do you have a reading comprehension problem? Do you not understand the concept of combatant control?

Governors do not wield ANY operational command authority of national guard assets that are engaged in sovereign security missions. EVER. Irrespective of where those sovereign security assets are domiciled, the governor has NOTHING to do with their deployment in national missions. Nothing.

No matter how much you want to make it so, governors are NOT the "commander-in-chief" of ANY asset that is tasked to a national sovereignty mission.

As for the rest of your diatribe, you forgot to put those statements in the past-tense. Sarah Palin no longer possesses any security clearance. She lost it the day she quit. She no longer receives any national security briefings. Those stopped the day she quit.

"What U.S. governor has a higher classified security rating than any candidate for the Democrat Party?"

Sarah Palin NEVER had a higher classified security rating than any of the 2008 candidates for the Democrat Party, nor would she have enjoyed a higher rating than any of the current Republican candidates that hold federal office. Why? Because Governors do not have operational control, nor do they have any federal oversight responsibility, so they are never privy to operational secrets except for the ones that happen within their state. Of course, every governor receives DHS and other counter-terrorism briefs, but there's nothing special about the state of Alaska.

Again, some of the crap you people come up with is AMAZING.

Geez but you really just make stuff up....

The 49th Missile Defense Battalion is on permanent active duty as a component of the 100th Missile Defense Brigade with HQ in Colorado.

Palin never was its commander. No matter how much you wish that this were not true, it is. She had no more control or influence over the operation of this unit than any civilian did.

"One area of Sarah Palin's background that may help her is Alaska's unique role in our national security and homeland defense. Several folks have have mentioned this but Tom W. was specific and his info jibes with the record."
"Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. It’s on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units."
"As governor of Alaska, Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counter terrorism. Her exposure to classified material may rival even Baden's."
"She's also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security's counter terrorism plans."
"Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country's defense. Given Alaska's proximity to Russia, she may have security clearances we don't even know about."
"According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used to keeping secrets."
"She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is."
So jam it, squid.

;-\

"She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is."

So jam it, squid.

;-\

"do you continue to assume anybody here would believe a word out of either side of your mouth"

Whatever they believe or don't believe is really none of my concern. But, the cock-n-bull story that you fabricated about Sarah Palin "facing down Vladimir Putin", has been THOROUGHLY discredited.

That's all I care about.

Sarah Palin was the governor of the least populated state in the Union, and she only could manage to do the job for less than 30-months before she bowed to political pressure. I don't need to say anything else, because that says it all.

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.