Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Revive the Republican Way of War
Financial Times ^ | 05/09/07 | Michael Lind

Posted on 05/09/2007 10:51:10 AM PDT by Clemenza

Whether a Democrat or a Republican is elected in 2008, the time is ripe for a reassertion of the traditional Republican way of war in America. By that I mean the approach to foreign policy of pre-neo-conservative Republicans such as Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Colin Powell - an approach that US President George W. Bush and the neo-conservatives have rejected in favour of a disastrous strategy inspired by cold war Democrats.

Neo-conservatives are far more likely to praise Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy than to quote Eisenhower or Nixon, and with good reason. Most are ex-Democrats, and their foreign policy tradition is based in the "cold war liberalism" of Truman, Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. As big-government liberals, cold war Democrats assumed that the US economy could afford both welfare and warfare. They favoured outspending the Soviet bloc at all levels.

Cold war Republicans were much more concerned about ensuring that the cost of containment did not stifle the American economy. Eisenhower feared that what he called "the military-industrial complex" would compete with the private sector for resources. To keep defence costs under control, he rejected matching Soviet power gun for gun, in favour of astrategy based on atomic airpower. Cold war Democrats influential in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations rejected this in favour of matching the Soviets and their proxies in conventional wars and even guerrilla wars. Result: Vietnam.

While trying to extricate the US from Vietnam, Nixon added the Nixon doctrine to the Republican way of war. In Guam on July 25 1969, he announced that, although the US would provide indirect aid to its allies, "we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the weapons for its defence". The Reagan doctrine added yet another element. Instead of sending US troops to liberate nations from communist dictatorships, the US would arm and bankroll insurgents in countries such as Afghanistan, Angola and Nicaragua. In an article in Foreign Affairs in 1992, Gen Powell added his own "Powell Doctrine", which stated that the US should not send troops except as a last resort and with sufficient force to ensure swift victory.

Call it the Eisenhower-Nixon-Reagan-Powell doctrine - a capital-intensive strategy for the traditional American party of capital. The US will rely on superior technology, rather than attempt to match the military manpower of its enemies (Eisenhower). The US will provide allies and clients with arms, intelligence and aid, but expect them to fight their own battles (Nixon). The US will support freedom fighters, but will not send its own soldiers to liberate them from their oppressors (Reagan). Only when all else fails will the US send its own troops (Powell).

Nothing could be further from the neo-conservative Bush doctrine. Neo-conservatives reject the logic of the Eisenhower doctrine, arguing that the US should permanently fund the military at cold war levels. They reject the spirit of the Nixon doctrine, arguing that the US in the name of "reassurance" should volunteer to protect allies such as Japan against their enemies such as North Korea. While praising Reagan, the neocons reject his doctrine, holding instead that the US should liberate oppressed nations by means of "regime change" instead of by his less costly alternative of arming indigenous "freedom fighters". And they reject the Powell doctrine, arguing that it raises the bar for US military intervention too high.

The neocon hostility to the Republican way of war comes as no surprise. They and their allies are converts to the Republican party who emerged from the anti-communist left wing of the Truman-Kennedy-Johnson Democrats. In the electorate, the major supporters of Mr Bush's foreign policy are hawkish southerners, who used to be Democrats until the cultural revolutions of the 1960s drove them out.

Now that the Republican way of warfare has been rejected by the Republican party, might it be adopted by the Democrats? In the past 30 years, moderate Republicans switched to the Democrats. Their geographic base - the northeast, midwest and Pacific coast - is that of the Republican party up to Eisenhower and Nixon.

"We're Eisenhower Republicans here," Bill Clinton reflected, shortly after being elected president. "We stand for low deficits, free trade, and the bond market." Mr Clinton was right: with the exception of their dwindling trade-union wing, the Democrats are already Eisenhower Republicans in domestic policy. Will the Democrats become Eisenhower Republicans in foreign policy, too? The Republican way of war could provide the Democrats with a tough-minded but cost-conscious national security strategy as an alternative to the Bush doctrine, with its spendthrift attitude towards American blood and treasure.

Will the 2008 election pit an Eisenhower Democrat against a Truman Republican? Now that would be an interesting debate.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: eisenhowerdoctrine; realism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
As I've said several times on this forum, we need Teddy Roosevelt and George Schultz, NOT Woodrow Wilson and Robert McNamara.
1 posted on 05/09/2007 10:51:13 AM PDT by Clemenza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Clemenza; Paul Ross; Tailgunner Joe; Thunder90

However .... I can list a number of things wrong with how both Eisenhower and Nixon dealt with the enemy. Eisenhower could have really smacked the commies in Asia harder and prevented both the Vietnam War as well as the China Threat. Nixon was way too into detent and listened way too much to Henry Da K.


2 posted on 05/09/2007 10:53:35 AM PDT by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

The weapons of today and certainly tomorrow are very different than those of the past. So too must be the leadership.


3 posted on 05/09/2007 10:56:17 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
I saw the author and that was enough. I think that creep wrote 'Up from Conservatism.'

Michael Lind is up something alright, but I can't say it on the board.

4 posted on 05/09/2007 10:58:02 AM PDT by Stepan12 ( "We are all girlymen now." Conservative reaction to Ann Coulter's anti PC joke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

Poor analysis. The neo-con crap is a canard. Bush is from a long line of GOP bluebloods, Cheney was a strong Reagan ally and SOD of Bush I. Rummy is a lifelong cold warrior. And the biggest hawk of them all, Duncan Hunter, is a reagnite down to his toes.


5 posted on 05/09/2007 10:58:47 AM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP_1900AD; rmlew
Disagree. Detente was a good policy in the early to mid 70s, as Johnson/McNamara/Bundy had botched Vietnam so atrociously (why weren't we at least fighting a proxy war in Laos and Cambodia to begin with circa '64-65? What was up with "teaching democracy" in the strategic hamlets?).

Nixon and Kissinger found themselves in a corner, largely caused by the actions of their predecessors. A combination of a bloated federal budget, increasing inflation (thanks Fed!), and the rise of folks like Wily Brandt in Germany meant that it was indeed time for a strategic "cooling" period both to reassess strategy, and bring things under control at home.

Nixon's two severe miscalculations were in trying to micromanage the economy (through a spineless jellyfish named Arthur Berns at the Fed, and a populist Democrat at treasury named Connolly), which only made things worse, and, of course, Watergate. On foreign policy, I believe that he did the right thing considering the cards he was dealt with.

6 posted on 05/09/2007 11:03:09 AM PDT by Clemenza (Rudy Giuliani, like Pesto and Seattle, belongs in the scrap heap of '90s Culture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
Call it the Eisenhower-Nixon-Reagan-Powell doctrine ...

A short list of Republicans this author likes. Says a lot to me.

7 posted on 05/09/2007 11:03:22 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Did Dennis Kucinich always look like that or did he have to submit to a series of shots? [firehat])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stepan12

I don’t care for Michael Lind, but even a severely broken Timex is correct at least twice a day. I would take it a step further and say that, while proxy wars would be a better strategy in places like Africa and south Asia, should crises arise due to TROP, I still believe that we should strike hard and fast when we know our enemies are on the ropes, and not care about “the Muslim street” if key jihadists are easily within the rifle scopes of either us or our proxies.


8 posted on 05/09/2007 11:05:45 AM PDT by Clemenza (Rudy Giuliani, like Pesto and Seattle, belongs in the scrap heap of '90s Culture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
Whether a Democrat or a Republican is elected in 2008, the time is ripe for a reassertion of the traditional Republican way of war in America. By that I mean the approach to foreign policy of pre-neo-conservative Republicans such as Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Colin Powell - an approach that US President George W. Bush and the neo-conservatives have rejected in favour of a disastrous strategy inspired by cold war Democrats.

Actually I think I would prefer the old Abe Lincoln Republican style of war

TOTAL warfare. Sherman's March through Tehran would be good.

9 posted on 05/09/2007 11:07:36 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (Killing all of your enemies without mercy is the only sure way of sleeping soundly at night.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
Call it the Eisenhower-Nixon-Reagan-Powell doctrine ...

Of course, Reagan finally bloodlessly defeated the USSR and Communism essentially by outspending it. This was the greatest bargain in the history of mankind.

Yet here the author is trying to dragoon Reagan in as support for his containment on the cheap theory!

Don't have the numbers right now, but defense spending, even with the war in Iraq, is vastly lower as a percentage of the federal budget and of the GDP than it was under any of these other GOP Presidents. So in any realist ic sense, GW is spending less than they did.

10 posted on 05/09/2007 11:19:32 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (I didn't claw my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
What we shouldn’t be doing is using the US military as policeman to the world. That was a policy of liberals like Kennedy and Johnson in the 1960`s. Our armed forces shouldn’t be involved in nation building or spreading democracy to the Islamic world either. The latter is an effort in futility.

The US military is designed to engage in war, fight battles, kick butt, win victory and get the out. Not get bogged down in potential losing scenarios. However, Lind has it wrong on one issue. The US military is underfunded. Reagan spent upwards of 28.1% of the budget on national defense. Even with the off budget costs of Iraq and Afghanistan thrown in, Bush43`s defense spending is 9%-10% less then what Reagan annually.

Spending 25% on the defesne of America is not out of line. If we didn't have such an insidious liberal welfare state to pay for, spending 40%-50% of the taxpayers money would be in keeping with the Constitution. Protecting the US homeland and its people are priority #1. Always has been. Its money well spent.

11 posted on 05/09/2007 11:19:32 AM PDT by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

Great minds and all that. Absolutely tied posting times!


12 posted on 05/09/2007 11:21:09 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (I didn't claw my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
>>>>>Great minds and all that.

Apparently so. :^)

13 posted on 05/09/2007 11:24:29 AM PDT by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

There’s a problem with Lind’s strategy: call it the Iran-Contra Effect. Once you engage in a strategy that emphasizes proxy wars, you have to accept that your own proxy may, from time-to-time, do things in the course of that war that offends US sensibilities.

The Contras weren’t choirboys, but they were effective. The Democrats were too squeamish to accept that what was going on down in Nicaragua was a real dogfight.

If we were to have followed Lind’s strategy in the Balkans, we probably would have gotten behind the Serbs in their attempt to clear Kosovo. Ooops! Can’t do that since “Ethnic Cleansing” is a crime.


14 posted on 05/09/2007 11:36:34 AM PDT by Tallguy (Climate is what you plan for, weather is what you get.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

He also has it wrong that we spent billions “nation building” in Germany, Japan, Italy, & the Phillipines.


15 posted on 05/09/2007 11:40:49 AM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Putting Powell in the same short list as Reagan tells me this author can’t differentiate between his rear end and a hole in the ground.
16 posted on 05/09/2007 11:59:07 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Did Dennis Kucinich always look like that or did he have to submit to a series of shots? [firehat])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
This is a pulling analysis. There is no going back to those policies, for we have a new dynamic from high tech weapons, more instantaneous press involvement, and outright leaking traitors within the government itself.

We fisrtly need to handle the 5th columnists in our own government,especially in the CIA, either quietly, or publicly.They need to be silenced, prosecuted or terminated.Government employees in violation of their oaths need to be tried or fired, or both.

Where is the old "Republican" doctrine on this. It did not exist.

Also we need to be aware that total war on any population is no longer politically acceptable in America. In the dyas of Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan,it was acceptable, or tolerated.

Now every strike must be planned to avoid innocent civilians.Iraqui troops have a hard time understanding this and do not feel that we are serious in our military activities. We have managed to convnce them of our approach, barely.

We have the approproiate military policies in place. What we do not have is an insistance on loyalty at home, by calling subterfuge when it is encountered, a distinctly new dynamic, since the Vietnam War, and one which also deeply effected Nixon ( John Kerry's treason, Paris Peace Talks) Reagan ( Dems prevent contra funding, and Reagans end run.) Eisenhower would have simply shot anyone trying these modern day hi jinks.

That is the major change, politicians willing to sell their country down the tubes for a little power. And so far our ( so called) neo conservative president has not been up to the task.

17 posted on 05/09/2007 12:40:54 PM PDT by Candor7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: everyone

Yeah, I can just see Ike pushing nationalized health care, “hate crimes” laws, gay marriage, uncontrolled immigration, and repeal of all restrictions on abortion.
There were Eisenhower Democrats in the ‘50s, but the aren’t many now, and Michael Lind would have no use for them, then or now.


18 posted on 05/09/2007 12:55:41 PM PDT by California Patriot ("That's not Charley the Tuna out there. It's Jaws." -- Richard Nixon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: pissant; Reagan Man
Japan, Germany, and Italy all had at least short experiences under a republican form of government. Japan's Parliament was a model for others in the 1920s, but the militarists changed that in the 1930s. In other words, it wasn't like there was any precedence.

I also believe that the billions we spent on Marshall Plan aid were, in many ways, unecessary, other than for infrastructure reconstruction. It was Ludwig Erhard and Wilhelm Ropke who liberalized the economy and Germany, and brought the country to normalcy, to say nothing of the reforms put in by Alicide de Gasperi in Italy and, to a lesser extent, De Gaulle and Giscard in the late 1950s in France.

19 posted on 05/09/2007 1:12:40 PM PDT by Clemenza (Rudy Giuliani, like Pesto and Seattle, belongs in the scrap heap of '90s Culture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
Also we need to be aware that total war on any population is no longer politically acceptable in America. In the dyas of Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan,it was acceptable, or tolerated.

Which is why we should wash our hands of "European" culture, and should allow proxy armies in other nations to "do as they see fit" and argue back to the Euros that "it is their culture" and that we can't judge the brutal actions of another group of people.

A bigger issue is the rise of mass media and an emotionally involved female electorate that personalized every crying Arab woman they see on television as a "mom like me." This last point, however, is intractable, unless we decided to give most of our womenfolk the boot, and imposed press censorship.

20 posted on 05/09/2007 1:16:08 PM PDT by Clemenza (Rudy Giuliani, like Pesto and Seattle, belongs in the scrap heap of '90s Culture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson