Posted on 08/23/2011 5:00:07 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Texas Gov. Rick Perry has leapt to the top in the Republican presidential race. His domestic policy looks standard-issue conservative. But his foreign policy veers neoconservativeeven after George W. Bush and Barack Obama together launched two full-scale wars, one kinetic military action, and two deadly drone-campaigns.
With the economy stuck in the doldrums, President Obama faces a potentially difficult reelection fight. However, it will take someone to beat him, and so far the leading Republicans do not impress. In a party that tends to practice political primogeniture, Mitt Romney was early anointed the front-runner. Yet dissatisfied GOP voters rushed to embrace an unknown new entrant, Rep. Michelle Bachman. Now Republicans are flocking to Gov. Perry, who a couple years ago declared that I have no interest in coming to Washington. Perrys political opening looms large.
What would a Perry victory mean for Americas role in the world? Like most governors, including his predecessor, Rick Perry hasnt talked that much about international issues, even though he has traveled far more extensively than had George W. Bush. But the early signs are not encouraging. In the 2008 race Perry endorsed Rudy Giulianinotable mostly for his know-nothing militancyas the candidate who will make America safe. Perrys current campaign advisers range from hawkish conservative to Bushian neoconservative. To paraphrase the Bible, where a candidates advisers are, there will his policy be.
The hyper-hawks, whose affiliations include the American Enterprise Institute, National Review online, and Heritage Foundation, suggest Perrys general commitment to an imperial foreign policy and force structure. Worse is the role of Bush cabal, highlighted by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who apparently put Perry in touch with several of the others, Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith, and NSC staffer William Lutiall architects of the catastrophe known as George Bushs foreign policy. Gov. Perrys reliance on these people suggests a proclivity for promiscuous and reckless war making.
One unnamed Perry adviser told Foreign Policy onlines Josh Rogin that Perry will distinguish himself from other Republicans as a hawk internationalist, embracing American exceptionalism and the unique role we must play in confronting the many threats we face. Michael Goldfarb, who worked for uber-hawk John McCain, approvingly termed Perry a cowboy, and said you have to assume hed shoot first and ask questions later.
Obviously, the president who inevitably comes to mind is George W. Bush, who knew little of the nations he was invading and the societies he was destroying. Bush twinned recklessness with hubris, the belief that Washington could easily override differences in history, tradition, culture, ethnicity, religion, and more and quickly remake the world.
Years later the U.S. remains far short of its goal of creating liberal, democratic allies in Afghanistan and Iraq. The situation in Pakistan is worse than ever, while conflict rages in Yemen and Libya. The only policy the U.S. appears to know is war.
Unfortunately, Perrys simplistic worldview applies to more than just Islamic lands. He opposed the reset of relations with Russia, which, he said, is increasingly aggressive and troublesome to its neighbors and former satellite nations. He worried about the rise of China and India. He warned that Iran and North Korea represent an imminent threat with their nuclear ambitions. He argued that leftists in Latin America are threatening democracy, and Hugo Chavez is harboring communist rebels in Venezuela.
Its quite a list, and Perry concluded that All of these issues require our attention and investment in defense capabilities. Naturally he advocated increasing military spending and even talked about sending U.S. troops to Mexico. Rogins assessment was that Perrys approach to foreign policy and national security appears to be a natural extension of his personality: aggressive, unapologetic, and instinctive. Again, this sounds just like George W. Bush.
No doubt, Washington faces international challenges. But America still enjoys unparalleled dominance, with the worlds largest economy and most powerful, even overwhelming, military. The U.S. also continues to possess enviable political stability and an extraordinary appeal to people around the globe. Nor does America face threats alone: Washington is allied with every industrialized state save China and Russia as well as the most powerful nation in the Middle East, Israel. The U.S. is improving its relationship with India, the second potential emerging superpower. And Washington continues to overspread the Americas.
In such a world the U.S. need not confront every threat, and especially need not do so militarily. Russia is determined to regain lost influencealong its borders, not challenge the U.S. for global preeminence. China is building a military to deter the U.S. from attacking it, not to attack America.
North Korea is a problem for America primarily because the U.S. continues to defend its populous and prosperous ally to the south. Pull out Americas troops and Pyongyangs ability to threaten America largely vanishes. A nuclear Iran would face destruction by both Israel and the U.S. if it attempted to use any weapons that it created, and its leadership has demonstrated no taste for collective suicide. The ability of left-wing Latin American thugs like Chavez to do harm is limited, as demonstrated by his failure to much expand his influence.
In such a world, the U.S. would not be well served by another aggressive, unapologetic, and instinctive president and policy. Under George Bush that approach brought strategic failure, human tragedy, and financial ruin. Barack Obamas mistakes, though many and real, pale in comparison to the record of his predecessor.
Equally worrisome is Perrys Middle Eastern policy. In a field dominated by candidates who routinely confuse the interests of Israel with those of the U.S., Perry stands out. Earlier this year he complained that President Obama continues a misguided policy of alienating our traditional allies, in this case Israel, one of our strongest partners in the war on terror. He charged that the administration was out of tune with America on Israel. And he inaccurately accused the president of wanting Israel to revert to its 1967 borders. (President Obama actually advocated using those borders to start negotiations.)
Angry about a planned flotilla intended to breach Israels Gaza blockade, Perry wrote Attorney General Eric Holder a very public letter in June to encourage you to aggressively pursue all available legal remedies to enjoin and prevent these illegal actions, and to prosecute any who may elect to engage in them in spite of your preemptive efforts. Indeed, Perry made the bizarre charge that the flotilla entailed the furnishing of a vessel with the intent that it be employed to commit hostilities against a people with whom the United States is at peace and provided material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization.
There are obvious reasons to favor Israel, including its more liberal and democratic political system. And Perry correctly believes that a safe, secure Israel is an essential part of stability in the Middle East. Nevertheless, more than four decades of Israeli military rule in the occupied territories, effectively subsidized and seemingly endorsed by Washington, have created human misery and political anger, generating regional instability and creating a powerful grievance against both Israel and America throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds. Supporting Israels most extreme parties guarantees that peace will never come.
Moreover, Washington shouldnt infringe the liberties of American citizens in order to advance Israeli government ends. Whatever the merits of the flotilla, U.S. participants are not terrorists deserving prosecution by their own government. That Gov. Perry so views people bringing humanitarian assistance to Gaza residents, who have suffered so badly from the Israeli blockade, illustrates his blinkered understanding of the complex Israel-Palestinian conflict.
Potentially worse than Perrys substantive views is how he comes to his positions. Two years ago he declared: My faith requires me to support Israel. Normally ones religion should not be a political issue, but the public deserves to know how Perrys faith influences his policies. Does he simply believe that Christianity requires concern for the Jewish people, or does he believe that Christian theology requires the U.S. government to reflexively back the Israeli government, irrespective of the impact on Americans? Put another way, would Perry treat the U.S. government as tool to achieve his religious ends? Christian eschatology is rife with foolish theorizing and political quackery, and some believers apply these dubious principles to policy-making as a matter of faith. Does Perry?
Rick Perrys entry into the presidential race will enliven the campaign. But the early indications are that his candidacy is unlikely to enrich political discourse, at least involving international issues. George W. Bush reborn is not what the Republican Party or America need.
Perry will do what needs to be done unlike Ron Paul who blames Israel and the USA for the Muzzies holding 30 year old grudges (concerning us) and 4000 year old grudges (concerning Israel)
By the way I saw Perry is cleaning up in South Carolina.
Lol. I guess I’m a hyper-hawk. Who knew?
To paraphrase the Bible, where a candidates advisers are, there will his policy be.
Do you know what orifice the author pulled this quote from? It is not in the Bible as far as I know. If quoting from the Bible, he should give the reference, otherwise, he is just making it up.
Like Joe Friday said, "The facts, m'am. Just the facts." If I'm given the facts, I'll make my decision accordingly.
Unfortunately, in the meantime, these idiots are DOING THE DEMOCRATS WORK FOR THEM! They are actively attempting to destroy legitimate GOP candidates before their campaigns are even rolling.
I'm not necessarily a Perry supporter, but I'm willing to listen to him because, unlike geniuses like Doug Bandow, I'm a reasonable guy.
Bandow - I don't need your idiotic opinion in order to form my own. Stop attacking candidates who would certainly be an improvement over Obama and give me a reason to vote for the candidate you support.
Stop the negative campaigning against your own side!
Is Perry Jewish? I thought neo-con was a euphemism for joooo.
This idiot Bandow is twisting God's Word to fit his jackass political opinion and to savage Rick Perry. He's a disgrace.
THE RETURN OF THE NEO-CON!!! Aaaahhhhh!!!!
Noooo!
The author is really stupid. One could attack Perry for being a neocon without advocating North Korea’s invasion of the South.
I suppose wanting to cut government spending makes you a TEXAS neo con.
This is compared to Washington DC neo cons who increase government spending trillions of dollars every few years without fail!
This author is one of the least knowledgeable that I have read in the last ten years. It is hard to know where to begin.
Let’s just say that the whole opiniion piece is claptrap and shows a lack of knowledge of history as well as foreign policy.
Doug Bandow is an extreme Libertarian who has written similar articles on all our major candidates (except Ron Paul, surprise surprise). He has had some very nasty words for Palin and Bachmann.
To give you an idea how extreme he is, he has written at least four articles calling for the lifting of sanctions against North Korea and thinks Taiwan should fall back under China’s rule.
He is the perfect definition of a neo-hippie or as Ayn Rand called Libertarians, the hippies of the right who trade rationalism for whims.
The author is an extreme Paultard. To them, anyone who is not Fraud Paul or slobbers at his feet is a NeoCon. Bandow has written almost the same article for almost all the Republican candidates, only replacing the name.
I take it as a given that only neocons can win the GOP nomination. Who was the last GOP president who wasn’t? Coolidge??
Blame America first!
Perry promotes leading from stregnth, this guy just promotes every other Nation in the world.
Let me illustrate using Bandow's article: "In such a world the U.S. need not confront every threat, and especially need not do so militarily. Russia is determined to regain lost influence along its borders, not challenge the U.S. for global preeminence. China is building a military to deter the U.S. from attacking it, not to attack America."
Russia is determined to regain lost influence along its borders. Bandow ignores that as that influence is regained, there are new borders to gain or re-gain influence. The Roman Empire expanded due to threats on its borders. As the borders expanded, new threats appeared at the new borders.
Here's an example of the narcissism, which implies that America is the cause of everything and no one else has their own aims and actions. It's always in response to America. "North Korea is a problem for America primarily because the U.S. continues to defend its populous and prosperous ally to the south. Pull out Americas troops and Pyongyangs ability to threaten America largely vanishes."
Ah, North Korea has sent missiles over Japan too and has built missiles that reach Alaska and the west coast.
"A nuclear Iran would face destruction by both Israel and the U.S. if it attempted to use any weapons that it created, and its leadership has demonstrated no taste for collective suicide."Ah, one nuclear missile wipes out half of Israel. Two or more missiles could wipe Israel off the map. And Iran's leadership compose Twelvers, who do believe that the Mahdi will return,when there is mass slaughter in the world. Ahmadinejad wants to bring this about.
Why I'm not libertarian on foreign policy.
I thought that was the scripture. He just made up his interpretation.
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.