Conservative Foreign Policy & Reagan's Legacy

RealClearPolitics ^ | March 22, 2011 | Colin Dueck

[neverdem]

America's current armed conflict with Muammar Gaddafi raises a cluster of familiar questions about U.S. intervention, democracy promotion, and nation building, not only in relation to Libya but also in relation to ongoing cases such as Egypt and Afghanistan. Conservatives and Republicans are wrestling with these questions, like everyone else, but with their own distinct values and priorities in mind. Let us take a step back to consider what a conservative foreign policy might look like on issues of democracy promotion and intervention.

When American conservatives reflect on concrete examples of undeniably successful, modern, conservative foreign policy presidents, they think first of Ronald Reagan. Indeed the vast majority of conservatives hold up Reagan as a model of how to conduct U.S. foreign and defense policy, but they do not always agree on the day to day implications of that Reaganite model.

For example, when Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, a longstanding American ally, was confronted with a popular protest movement earlier this year, some leading conservatives like William Kristol invoked the Reaganite legacy of democracy promotion in urging the U.S. to help topple the Egyptian autocrat. Other conservatives like Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, John Bolton, and Charles Krauthammer pointed out the danger that Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood might ultimately fill the gap left by Mubarak's departure.

Since Republicans seem to agree that Reagan set the standard, it is worth asking: what exactly was his approach toward democracy promotion abroad?

There is no doubt that Reagan believed democracies to be more peaceful, more trustworthy, and more just in their foreign policy behavior than authoritarian forms of government. Indeed he created the National Endowment for Democracy in 1983 to help provide training, technical aid, and financial support toward the promotion of democratic practices including free and fair elections overseas. In relation to U.S. adversaries at...

[who_would_fardels_bear]

So basically Reagan would have been against invading Iraq since it could have ... and in fact will ... lead to the Shiite domination of that country which would then align itself with a radicalized Muslim Iran.

Glad I'm with Reagan on this issue.

[newzjunkey]

My reading of the piece led me to a similar notion.

It seems like Reagan would've focused America on getting the job done in Afghanistan and not have gone ahead to Iraq like W.

I was always skeptical of our ability to nation build, never in our ability to topple Saddam. I am not convinced the resulting "free" Iraq will be fundamentally better for peace or stability than what it replaced. It's frustrating. I pray our armed forces will not have sacrificed in vain but I pray harder failure will not require deeper sacrifices ahead.

I was glad to see the author's take on Reaganite policy matched my instincts on Egypt. I was a bit shocked at the speed with which Obama threw Mubarak under the bus. Copts seem to lack confidence in their safety under a new regime and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Libya is a WTF moment. The unclarity exposes the weakness of our current president and the West in general. Eyes are watching. Millions of them.

There are two possible outcomes. The wild-eyed optimist sees stable, peaceful western-style democracies spread across islamic countries. We'll all trade freely and sing kumbaya. Or, the stability of dictators is traded for violent radicalization and the stage is set for World War.