![](http://lh4.ggpht.com/_m2qKabRzNLg/S05RYjX3c1I/AAAAAAAACaA/lc93FW0PO_Y/gal_palin-ny_1.jpgwidth="125") |
Posted on 05/07/2011 4:30:00 PM PDT by Hojczyk
In a speech at Colorado Christian College earlier this week, Sarah Palin laid out a five-point set of standards by which the United States should commit its troops to military action.
Bearing the palpable influence of her new foreign policy adviser -- Peter Schweizer, a scholar at the conservative Hoover Institution who has been on SarahPAC's payroll for less than three weeks -- Palin's criteria for military action seemed at first glance to be less aggressive than the hawkish foreign policy she has consistently espoused.
As recently as February, Palin had been among the first prominent Republicans calling for a no-fly zone over Libya. She trumpeted the neoconservative leanings of her longtime foreign policy advisers, Randy Scheunemann and Michael Goldfarb, in justifying her call for military action against Muammar Gaddafi's forces: "We should not be afraid of freedom," she declared, "especially when it comes to people suffering under a brutal enemy of America."
Palin may never go as far as Huckabee in questioning the continued mission in Afghanistan. But her populist instincts and knack for framing hot-button issues in visceral terms would likely set her apart on foreign policy debates, if she were to mount a White House run later this year.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
She’s got to show a chick side if she wants the women’s vote. Maybe this is the beginning of it.
Anyhow, I don’t think she’s made any actual campaign promises vis a vis 2012. She’s kept herself to political commentary and punditry. Once she voices actual policy intents, hopefully much of the opposition to her will melt away.
Sarah is right on target, as usual. It is time we abandoned this sentimental feeling that all the world’s people want liberal democracy, and all we have to do is eliminate a few evil people so they can have it. It is even questionable whether the U.S. itself still has the cultural wherewithal to sustain a limited-govt. republic. The foreign policy objective of this country should be to protect the U.S. and the few other countries who share it’s beliefs, not to reform the world.
Ping. I don’t agree with every word, but Scott Conroy is actually attempting to be objective here. Good effort.
|
|
Is a Declaration of War part of that 5 point plan?
As I’ve said before, she has to be careful about how she talks about foreign policy. Democrats say whatever the hell they like, but responsible politicians have to be careful if they are not part of the administration.
That said, she did NOT especially push the Libyan war. She did say that Obama should make up his mind, and stop changing what he says every five minutes.
I’m glad to see this shift. Those McCain advisers were idiots, as we can perhaps see from McCain’s current behavior concerning Libya.
It must be said that NO OTHER REPUBLICANS have come out and said what should have been said about the Libyan war: That Obama started bombing a sovereign nation without making any effort whatsoever to address the nation or to go to congress. Contrast that with Bush, who explained what he was doing and got congressional permission to do it—although the Democrats soon seemed to forget what they had voted for.
Boehner sent Obama a LETTER, and then dropped the whole subject. Our Senate leaders, who should have been consulted, have said NOTHING.
It seems to me that Sarah has been better than most on this subject, and now is really getting the right idea—unlike anyone else interested in running for President. Unless you count one-note Ron Paul, who wouldn’t know the difference between a war in our interests and a war against our interests, like this one.
I scanned the article. I didn’t see a five point plan laid out but I did like that she seems to be turning from the neocon viewpoint and looking more towards a “what national interest is it of ours” viewpoint.
I agree with your opinion.
Palin is setting her own course and her instincts and thought process are excellent. I have no doubt that she’s in lock step with the majority of Americans when it comes to foreign policy.
I don’t know where you have been, her 5 points have been in the news
Here it is:
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.
Thanks for the ping, Al. It is a very good article, especially since Conroy has not always treated her fairly.
It shows Palin to be an eclectic, like Reagan. Someone who does not lightly use force (as the neocons are often wont to do) but someone who does not spurn force in every case (like Ron Paul and his disciples).
I think her love of the military has exerted a kind of gravitational pull on her away from the neocons. She simply cannot abide the use of U.S. forces in non serious, unfocused so-called missions, especially the ridiculous nation building which the Bushes and Clinton were so fond of. Reagan would never have countenanced any othis nonsense either. Losing the Marines in Beirut was a sash of cold water in his face and he never again went down that road. He also never trusted the neocons. He knew they were Democrats at heart and not conservatives in any meaningful sense. Reagan would not have given Krauthammer or Kristol the time of day. The few neocons in his administration (Richard Perle, Frank Gaffney, Paul Wolfowitz and Ken Adelman) were in subcabinet posts and the Gipper had them all aimed squarely at the Russians or in other spots (like East Asia and Pacific Affairs) where they couldn’t launch any schemes in the Middle East. They knew better than to come to him with some wild eyed nation building.
They had to wait for the advent of Bush to achieve their goals. The advent of Palin means their days are numbered.
Well no I hadn’t seen that but if that is her new view on the issue of military force, I like it.
Yeah, she effectively dumped the “New World Order” theory of military force this week.
i disagree. scott took Palin’s doctrine and made her seem like a she was emotional instable and prone to changing her mind on whim. i.e Scott painted her a s asterotypical woman. yet other hitpiece.
when the opposite is true Gov Palin has been very consistent with her foreign policy views since day one.
she never carried it so it would be hard for her to dump it.
This thought that Palin is shifting her foreign policy view is a MSM created meme. Palin has always been a Reaganite peace through strength we win you lose. she has been saying the same thing for 3 years now.
Palin may never go as far as Huckabee in questioning the continued mission in Afghanistan. But her populist instincts and knack for framing hot-button issues in visceral terms would likely set her apart on foreign policy debates, if she were to mount a White House run later this year.
In one sentence, tell me why the US remains in Afghanistan today?
Sounds a little Nathan Bedford Forrest to me.
Keep'em guessen, get amongst'em, put a skeer in'em.
ditto that...
The GOP establishment hate everything she stands for, Bachnan would have a bigger voice, except she is a lot like Palin. They fear both of them, but they fear Whom they serve even more.
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.