Posted on 05/04/2011 6:03:30 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In light of Obama’s morally indefensible and dyslexic policies regarding Egypt, Iran, Israel, Libya, and Syria, it is important that our eventual presidential nominee articulate a bold distinction in the realm of foreign policy.
Conservative domestic policy doctrine is quite indubitable and lucid (except among many elected Republicans); limited government, free enterprise, protection of individual liberties, limitation of criminal liberties, secure borders, and a robust civil society. Foreign policy is more ambiguous because it is governed more by prudence than by doctrine. Even though the overarching principle of any foreign policy initiative is American exceptionalism, the murkiness of America’s security interests has long blurred the distinction between divergent foreign policies.
During the Bush years, the distinction between “liberal” and “conservative” foreign policy was obfuscated even further due to President Bush’s embrace of neoconservative principles such as democratization and human rights interventions. Also, the only opposition from the right which percolated into the media was the voices of those like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, who believed that our involvement in the Middle East and support of Israel served as the impetus for Islamic terror.
As such, the average political observer was presented with a false choice of conservative foreign policy between the so-called neoconservatives like Bill Kristol and so-called paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan. Moreover, many conservatives, desiring to emphatically repudiate the detestable behavior of the anti-war movement, became inclined to reflexively support foreign intervention at any cost simply to “stay the course” and oppose the anti-war left. These conservatives continue to injudiciously support an open ended commitment in Afghanistan and Libya, despite serious concerns to our national interests.
Earlier this week, Sarah Palin articulated the principles of a foreign policy that are neither neoconservative nor paleoconservative; rather plain old conservative. Speaking at the Colorado Christian University for a military charity fundraiser, Governor Palin outlined the following commonsense principles for foreign intervention:
There’s a lesson here then for the 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 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 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 stretch out our military with open-ended and ill-defined missions. Nation building is a nice idea in theory, but it is 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 troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly and concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent into battle. Period.
Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side with our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and the command of American officers.
Fifth, sending in 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 will provide them with material support to help them win their own freedom.
We are not indifferent to the cause of human rights or the desire for freedom. We are 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 going to prove that free and healthy countries 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.
You can read the full transcript of the speech here and watch the video here.
Obama’s continued obduracy in support of the Egyptian, Libyan, and Yemeni rebels, in conjunction with the full throated cooperation of the neoconservatives, has provided most conservatives with a sense of clarity on foreign policy. The ironic bond between the anti-colonialist left and neoconservatives vis-à-vis the Arab uprisings, has shown conservatives that we must indeed oppose some interventions, even if they are incidentally opposed by the anti-war crowd as well.
Unfortunately, there has been less vocal concern from conservatives regarding the situation in Afghanistan. While we continue to support the eradication of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, we must begin to pay closer attention to the mounting casualties in a war that is being waged with egregious rules of engagement and costing us hundreds of billions. It appears that once Obama acceded to the troop surge and appointed General Petraeus as commander, conservatives have opted to largely remain silent on Afghanistan. Undoubtedly, a rash pullout, as the anti-war folks suggest, would be detrimental to our security interests. However, we must remain vigilant and keep up the pressure to clearly define our mission in Afghanistan in order to preclude a permanent commitment to nowhere. And no, Bin Laden’s demise doesn’t change the dynamic in Afghanistan either way.
With Republicans like John McCain credulously supporting the Libyan rebels, it is imperative that our presidential candidates offer a clear and bold-colored distinction from Obama (and McCain), not just on domestic policy, but on foreign policy too. In addition, he/she will need to articulate a set of coherent principles for our future in Afghanistan other than “stay the course.”
A foreign policy that is merely anti anti-war is not conservative. Sarah Palin’s general principles should serve as the catalyst for a much needed dialogue on the application of conservative foreign policy doctrine to today’s geopolitical issues.
Barack Obama’s cluelessness in regards to Lybia became glaringly obvious when the U.S. military was put in the spot of providing air support for “rebels” that were, in fact, al Qaeda allies.
Many FReepers wondered how Obama could be that incompetent. Some FReepers thought that nobody could be that incompetent and wondered if Obama was helping al Qaeda on purpose. Some FReepers agreed.
Obama will be pleased. …. FReeper comment Number 1.
Why do you think he acted so quickly …. FReeper comment Number 2.
Here is what I posted in answer to that question:
******************
Because of stupidity. Because, in foreign affairs, Barack Obama is totally clueless. Because Barack Obama never bothered to do his homework and educate himself. Because Barack Obama was an Affirmative Action candidate that too many irrational people gushed over because of the way he looked and sounded instead of what he knew and you can't realistically expect anything but FUBAR's from such a President.
Barack Obama got into the "Let's overthrow Gadhafi" chess game without ever bothering to study what would happen beyond the first move of "Pawn to King 4".
Barack Obama had not thought out the chess game beyond the extremely naïve notion that you can:
1.) Topple Gadhafi so that
2.) America can then Cut & Run so that
3.) The Democracy Fairy can wave her Magic Wand and everybody lives happily ever after
The three major problems with that childishly naïve lunacy are that:
1.) There is no such thing as a Democarcy Fairy
2.) In all of military history, air power has never, ever, secured a single square mile of territory. To secure territorry, you need "boots on the ground". The 8th Air Force may have flattened East Berlin in World War II but East Berlin became Communist because, after the bombing, it was the Soviets with "boots on the ground" there.
3.) The one warring faction that is pouring fighters into Libya in order to have "boots on the ground" to secure the final Victory in Libya is al Qaeda. ("Thank you, U.S. air power, for giving us the future Billions of dollars of Libyan oil revenues that we will use to kill Americans!")
After his intial blunder, saner heads at the Pentagon pointed out to Obama:
"Mr. President, what about the fact that al Qaeda has been flooding Libya with radical Islamist fighters in order to be the only warring faction with the necessary "boots on the ground" to secure the final control over Libya? You specifically expect to "get out" and leave a power vacuum in Libya that al Qaeda is already mobilized to fill? It will turn over Libya and it's oil wealth over to the Islamic radicals just as surely as Jimmy Carter's blundering with another dictator turned Iran over to the Islamist fanatics."
Then, Obama realized what an idiot he has been.
"What should I do now? How can I fix this?"
"Stalemate, Mr. President. We will claim a stalemate. With Gadhafi still in power, we can use him as a proxy to keep the radical Islamists in check just like George H. W. Bush used Saddam to keep the Iranian-backed, radical Islamists in southern Iraq in check in 1991 after the Gulf War."
So, the Pentagon starts making statements about "Stalemate".
This is the Charlie Foxtrot that happens when voters support a ridiculously unprepared and unqualified Affirmative Action candidate just because they absolutely adore how that candidate looks and sounds without ever bothering to figure out if that candiate would lead America into FUBAR after FUBAR through sheer ignorance and incompetence.
You do not have to be a secret al Qaeda supporter to get America into such a FUBAR and hand Billions of dollars of future oil revenue over to al Qaeda.
You just have to be so utterly unqualified to be Commander-in-Chief that you actually have the extremely naïve notion that you can:
1.) Topple Gadhafi so that
2.) America can then Cut & Run so that
3.) The Democracy Fairy can wave her Magic Wand and everybody lives happily ever after
Case in point:
"So what our president said at first, that our mission is to see Qaddafi go, he's got to go, but then we're told by one of his top advisers, the president's top advisers, saying, Well, no, really, Qaddafi is probably going to prevail on this. He's probably going to prevail over the opposition. And then our president changes the tune again, saying, Well, it's not our mission to oust Qaddafi. A lot of confusion. I would like to see, of course, as long as we're in it -- we better be in it to win it. And if there's doubt, we get out. Win it means Qaddafi goes and America gets to get on out of there and let the people of Libya create their own government" .... Sarah Palin in interview with Greta van Sustern
"But, Governor Palin, what about the fact that al Qaeda has been flooding Libya with radical Islamist fighters in order to be the only warring faction with the necessary "boots on the ground" to secure the final control over Libya? You specifically expect to "get out" and leave a power vacuum in Libya that al Qaeda is already mobilized to fill? It will turn over Libya and it's oil wealth over to the Islamic radicals just as surely as Jimmy Carter's blundering with another dictator turned Iran over to the Islamist fanatics."
"Umm ... What do you mean by "boots on the ground"? What's an "Islamist"? What does al Qaeda have to do with any of this and the Democracy Fairy?"
Heck, she's already made significant inroads with India and Israel.
It’s sad that there is no mention that going to war must be a decision made by the representatives of the people, not by the president, as provided for in our Constitution.
I believe that one of our Founding Fathers summed it up best when he said “Avoid foreign entanglements”.
Unfortunately the 2nd Bush administration to this day believes that they followed all five points when they prosecuted 'Operation Iraqi Freedom.' Somehow they have convinced themselves that they went in with a well-defined plan, with overwhelming force, to fight a quick and efficient war.
That we are still there is proof positive that they were wrong. However, the essayist correctly states that even if we find out later that the war is tougher than we had imagined the conservative thing is to not just cut and run.
So basically every president from all time can claim that they followed the five points, was surprised that the war lasted longer than they had hoped, and because they couldn't just cut and run we ended up staying longer and spending more money and lives than we intended.
According to this politician "logic" even the Vietnam War followed Palin's five points.
Basically Palin's Five Points are not original to her. They have been stated, restated, and affirmed by many, if not all, administrations. In theory they are great. In practice they are turned on their head and we end up going to war far more often than we should, and get stuck in many more quagmires than is justified.
After the wall fell Bush the 1st launched the USA on a new path of foreign affairs which he termed the New world order. In that doctrine was the need for international support and the defacto veto of the UN over American actions. after that point it become a needed thing to get partners to engage in armed conflict. be it Somalia, the first gulf war, kosovo, Iraq Afghanistan, Libya etc....Palin called for a rejection of that policy and replacement with the Reagan doctrine.
a very good move by Gov Palin. The only reaganite on the field both in domestic policy and now in foreign policy.
To put some interesting spin on things, at some point, the Bush family developed and acquired the equivalent of diplomatic data mining software. Perhaps from the CIA, perhaps somewhere else.
As background, for some years, police agencies have had software that correlates vast amounts of data about criminals, their associations and families, their m.o.’s, their victims, etc. This creates a huge number of “linkages” that can be pursued when a crime is committed, far more than any human could figure out. The software is so successful that it was adapted for use by the US military in Iraq, to discover terrorist networks.
When H.W. Bush was president, he mentioned the thousands of interconnections, “linkages”, that exist between nations, and how if they could be figured out, US foreign policy could be a dimension greater than anything anyone else had. Acting invisibly, the US could almost always get what it wanted, even if it had no direct involvement.
Then, even before the campaign season had begun, W. Bush began building the soon to be presidential ranch in Crawford, TX; and had also cornered all the big money Republican contributors, so that the primary race was over before it had begun. This level of prior planning seems to jibe with some kind of advice oracle.
But the Bush family seems to be keeping this capability in the family, and a few, trusted allies. So it is not a “Republican” foreign policy.
Some of these principles may sound familiar. A few of them were first expressed back in 1984 in President Reagan’s cabinet. They were designed to help us sharply define when and how we should use force, and they served us well in the Reagan years. Times are much different now, but I believe that by updating these time-tested principles to address the unique and changing circumstances and threats that we face today, they will serve us well now and into the future. Remember, Reagan liked to keep it simple, yet profound. Remember what he would say to the enemy? He’d say, “we win, you lose.” Some may argue that today in a world where we are dealing with terrorist organizations rather than Cold War adversaries, these principals are outdated. On the contrary, these principles are timeless. They will allow us to effectively and forcefully defend our vital national interests and those of our key allies in the age of terrorism. We must vigorously defend ourselves, but at the same time we must not wear down our armed forces with never-ending and ever-increasing commitments. I believe that America must never retreat into isolation. The world would be less safe and less free without our leadership. And we must never forget that America has a responsibility to lead. “To whom much is given, much is expected.” We cannot be the world’s policeman granted, or the world’s ATM. But we can lead by example. By our words and, when necessary, by our actions, we must and we will remain the world’s abiding beacon of freedom.
One of the key differences between Palin's doctrine and Powell's doctrine is the need for international support. the Bush/Powell's doctrine was basically Reagan's doctrine except Powell and bush added that need for international support and called it the New world Order. Palin is calling for rejection of that New world Order and a return of the Reagan Doctrine updated to handle the fact that we are not in the cold war but in a different type of fight.
As far as your point about all wars following the 5 points. that simply is not true. The gulf war's end was dictated not by a clearly defined plan but on how far the coalition of the willing allowed America to go. Iraq and Afghanistan were not in any way shape or form following these 5 points. nor is the present Libya operation, or Kosovo or the Haiti mission and on and on. the last military operation that followed the Reagan doctrine was Panama.
You're wrong.
You need both Congress AND the President to wage a successful war. The President commands the troops. Congress funds the effort. Can't have one without the other, though each may try.
The President can command the troops to wage war until the money runs out. Then he needs Congress to fund the effort. Congress can declare that they want to fund a war, but they will get nowhere with out a CIC to wage the war.
That is what a system of checks and balances is all about.
That's the simplicity of the Constitution.
That is what a system of checks and balances is all about.
That's the simplicity of the Constitution.
You could hardly be more wrong.
The United States Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land in our country, delegates the power to declare war to the Congress and the power to wage war to the President. What that means is that only the Congress, as representatives of the People and of the States, can determine whether or not the nation goes to war. If the People, through Congress, decide that the nation shall go to war, the President then, and only then, has the authority to wage it.
Unless the country is being invaded, if the congress does not declare war against another country, the president is constitutionally barred from waging it, no matter how much he desires to do so.
I can hardly believe that someone who posts on FR could have such little regard for the clear words of the Constitution. Your view denigrates that great document no less than the "living document" view of the progressives. Our system of checks and balances is not predicated on one branch being able to disregard the Constitution until another branch does something about it. It is based on each branch abiding by the powers granted to it by the Constitution itself.
I find your heretical view of the Constitution frightening and suggest that you read up on the history of the writing of the Constitution, including when Pierce Butler brought up his view of the war-making powers of the presidency, that was quite similar to yours, and how he was renounced by all of the other members of the convention.
I find your heretical view of the Constitution frightening and suggest that you read up on the history of the writing of the Constitution, including when Pierce Butler brought up his view of the war-making powers of the presidency, that was quite similar to yours, and how he was renounced by all of the other members of the convention.
Bullsh*t.
Pierce Butler favored vesting the power in the President, and of course that's not what I described above.
To wage war, you need a concurrence of the President and both Houses of Congress.
Congress can declare and fund a war all it wants, but if a president doesn't comannd the troops, there is no war.
Our system of checks and balances is not predicated on one branch being able to disregard the Constitution until another branch does something about it. It is based on each branch abiding by the powers granted to it by the Constitution itself.
Your "it's unconstitutional because....it's unconstitutional" logic is circular.
A president can commit troops in the name of defending the country. It's insane to think that a president can't. In that case it's up to Congress to then declare war and fund the war if they concur. If Congress does not concur, then they have the power to defund the war.
I find your level of intelectual understanding to be frightning. Reminds me of mid-sixties to early seventies leftwing propaganda.
The president can be replaced by Congress whenever they want. Refusal to fight a declared war would be more than enough reason.
I find your level of intelectual understanding to be frightning. Reminds me of mid-sixties to early seventies leftwing propaganda.
Look, I don't know where you got your GED, but your view that the Constitution means what you want it to mean, not what it clearly states, is what being leftwing is all about.
The president can be replaced by Congress whenever they want. Refusal to fight a declared war would be more than enough reason.
So if a leftwing Democrat Congress declared war on free Poland and free Ukraine and if a Ronald Reagan type president refused to command the troops to invade Poland and Ukraine, do you actually think that Congress could justifiably impeach the President?
Look, I don't know where you got your GED, but your view that the Constitution means what you want it to mean, not what it clearly states, is what being leftwing is all about.
Cut the spam doofus, try thinking past your nose and answer the above question.
Let's take a real world hypothetical. If Roosevelt would have refused to wage war on Japan or Germany after the Declaration of War by the Congress, you bet he would have been impeached.
After all, the vast majority of Freepers bought into the Iraq War and the justifications put out by the Bush administration: we had a well-defined objective (get rid of Saddam which would automatically lead to the establishment of a democratic government), go in with sufficient force, and get out quick.
If you didn't believe all that horsepucky then Freepers would accuse you of being a commie pinko pacifist.
I've become really cynical with regard to America's foreign policy. I wish we would just change it to being truly and openly cynical: if a country kills an American, we bomb them. If they mess with one of our corporations then we bomb them. Otherwise keep the lines of trade and communication open in hopes that they will eventually come to their senses and institute democratic free market principles.
Let's take a real world hypothetical. If Roosevelt would have refused to wage war on Japan or Germany after the Declaration of War by the Congress, you bet he would have been impeached.
Of course, but that's not the question I asked you.
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.