Kristol: Palin shouldn't be 'Obama-lite' on foreign policy

Politico ^ | 05/03/2011 | Ben Smith

[hcmama]

Republicans use to be the party that kept us out of unnecessary wars. They need to return to that.

Conservative foreign policy has always been grounded in realism. It has historically rejected this social-engineering-writ-large nonsense of "nation-building" as a waste of blood and treasure. Why the neo-cons decided to breathe life into this discredited policy, and why so many traditional conservatives swallowed it whole, is a mystery to me.

[Captain Kirk]

Now is the time to hit them even harder

Defenders of these trillion dollar quagmires (three and counting) have been saying that for ten years. Of course, if they alone had to pay the full costs of their endless nation-building wars, they'd sing a different tune....but then they don't have to.

[hcmama]

And you are right: A party devoted to a kick ass military and a national interest based foreign policy does not translate into being "the war party."

[hcmama]

And you are right: A party devoted to a kick ass military and a national interest based foreign policy does not translate into being "the war party."

[McGruff]

Who cares what Fonzie thinks.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Heh...Kristol is just mad because Sarah kicked him out of her circle after he started spouting his Scrowcroft nonsense.

[Ben Ficklin]

What is “his Scowcroft nonsense”

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Interventionist foreign policy.

From the article...

I know Brent Scowcroft. I worked with Brent Scowcroft. Sarah Palin’s no Brent Scowcroft.

My other thought: The surge in Iraq works. The surge in Afghanistan works. There’s an Arab Spring. The world obviously needs American strength and leadership more than ever. And now everyone (even Palin, to some degree) decides, hey, time to back off? It’s foolish substantively and politically. Do Republicans really want to run as Obama-lite in foreign policy?

[itsahoot]

Republicans use to be the party that kept us out of unnecessary wars. They need to return to that. Conservative foreign policy has always been grounded in realism.

Want to give an example of a peace settlement where we came out ahead. We won WW II decisively, but lost Billions in the process, and gave Russia half of Europe. We suck at peace deals.

[itsahoot]

Actually I did leave out the British, and the Indians, plus Texas.

[Ben Ficklin]

Scowcroft is a foreign policy Realist. Like Powell, Gates, Kissinger, etc. Palin's new adviser, Peter Schweitzer, is also a Realist.

Obama is considered to be a Realist. Powell, Gates, Scowcroft, and Kissinger have had much influence over Obama.

Realists say the US should intervene only if it is in the US's interest. The Realists are opposed to intervening for idealistic reasons such democratizing or nation building.

[Brices Crossroads]

“I know Brent Scowcroft. I worked with Brent Scowcroft. Sarah Palin’s no Brent Scowcroft.”

**************************************

Thank God she’s not Brent Scowcroft. I note for the record that Scowcroft’s long tenure In Washington included stints with Nixon, Ford and George H.W. Bush, all opponents of Ronald Reagan. Scowcroft never worked for Reagan in any executive level position. I wonder why.

The neocons, of which Scowcroft is a charter member, have talked us into four wars since Bush 41, two of which have lasted for a decade, and three of which are going on as we speak. In so doing, they have weakened our military and spread us very thin. They have also foisted ridiculous, politically correct rules engagement on the military, which prolong wars and increase our combat casualties. This is something Reagan never would have countenanced. Neither will Palin. If the American military is committed under President Palin, it will be totally committed and victory will be total...no “nation building” nonsense that the neocons are so enamored of. This is not a function that the military can or should perform. And it results in a lot of brave Americans getting killed by IEDs, while they are babysitting rogue countries.

______________________________________

“My other thought: The surge in Iraq works. The surge in Afghanistan works. There’s an Arab Spring. The world obviously needs American strength and leadership more than ever. And now everyone (even Palin, to some degree) decides, hey, time to back off? It’s foolish substantively and politically.”

*****************************************

If Reagan had been President, and had committed troops, there would never have been any perceptible surge....THE ENTIRE OPERATION WOULD HAVE BEEN A SURGE. And it would have been over in a matter of weeks or a few months. Not 10 freaking years. Palin is apparently of the same mind as the Gipper. Great.

“Do Republicans really want to run as Obama-lite in foreign policy?”

I don’t know what Republicans want. I don’t care either. Conservatives want a foreign policy modeled after Reagan, which credibly threatened the use of “MASSIVE FORCE” and used that threat to achieve American objectives, such as toppling the Soviet Union without firing a shot and liberating over half a billion people.

RINOs like Kristol want the GOP to continue as the perpetual War Party, until the military is totally demoralized and the country is totally bankrupt. No thanks. We have had a quarter century of them. Back to the Brookings Institution with the lot of them.

[ejdrapes]

I thought Palin was an early supporter of the no fly zone in Libya. In fact I believe it was the NY Post or Washington Times which referred to it as the “Palin Doctrine”. Now it seems she’s just copying Michele Bachmann’s position. Bachmann has always been skeptical about our in involvement in Libya.

[x]

Thank God she’s not Brent Scowcroft. I note for the record that Scowcroft’s long tenure In Washington included stints with Nixon, Ford and George H.W. Bush, all opponents of Ronald Reagan. Scowcroft never worked for Reagan in any executive level position. I wonder why.

Hmmm ...

Ex-Sen. Tower Will Probe NSC : Reagan Also Puts Scowcroft, Muskie on Iran Inquiry
November 26, 1986|Associated Press
President Reagan today appointed former Sen. John Tower, former Secretary of State Edmund S. Muskie and one-time national security adviser Brent Scowcroft to a special board that will investigate the activities of the White House National Security Council staff in the secret sale of U.S. arms to Iran.

Maybe that's not an "executive level position" but the appointment indicates that Reagan didn't hate him.

The neocons, of which Scowcroft is a charter member, have talked us into four wars since Bush 41, two of which have lasted for a decade, and three of which are going on as we speak.

Hmmm ...

Don't Attack Saddam
by Brent Scowcroft, August 15, 2002
Originally Published in the Wall Street Journal

Scowcroft was more of realist.

Palin's been more of a neo-con than Scowcroft.

[Brices Crossroads]

I never suggested that there was unanimity among the neocons about all the interventions of the last 20 years. The real problem is not even the intervention but the nation building that follows. This is where our troops are misused and wind up dead. Scowcroft does support nation building, which is a huge mistake and what separates him form Reagan (and Palin).

Getting the Mideast Back on Our Side.

http://www.scowcroft.com/html/gettingthemiddleeast.html

I think it is hilarious that you think Reagan’s appointment of Scowcroft to a meaningless board is evidence that there was no hostility. (He was a close friend of Reagan’s vice President; that in itself would qualify anyone for a position on a board or commission).

Scowcroft had been a been a military and visor Deputy National Security Advisor to Nixon and National security Advisor to Ford. Such a resume makes his absence from any significant position in the Reagan administration stick out like a sore thumb.

[jla]

When Ben Smith and Bill Kristol volunteer for our armed services then will I care what they have to say about foreign policy and sending our troops into any combat or likely combat scenario.
Though, I won't hold my breath, as both of these *men* would probably begin sobbing if they broke a fingernail.
Kristol may just be the biggest pussy to ever grace the media scene.

[x]

Scowcroft was also appointed by Reagan to the Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management. Every president has only so many big name positions to go around, and Scowcroft had a lucrative private job in the Reagan years. One doesn't have to assume that Reagan hated Scowcroft to explain why he didn't offer him one of the few top-level positions.

But your point here, that Scowcroft was one of the dreaded neo-cons, really doesn't hold up. Check out Frustrated Scowcroft Assails Neocons, Cheney. Scowcroft was a bit more skeptical of Gorbachev than Reagan and he was interested in nation-building, but he was not a neocon in the way that word has come to be used.

"Nation-building" is an ambiguous phrase. If you find yourself victorious in war, you will have to do something to rebuild or lose the peace, but that doesn't meant that you go to war to rebuild other people's nations. You've only got to look at Scowcroft's comments on Iraq to realize that he wasn't for nation-building in the second sense. He didn't want to go to war to remake Iraq, but once we were there were we really going to just pull out and let things go back to how they were?

It's kind of a silly argument. It's hard to say who is and who isn't a neocon. For some people a neocon is a One World liberal internationalist, for others it's a Go It Alone interventionist cowboy.You might even call Scowcroft's associate Kissinger a neocon, though I doubt anyone else would. It's hard to say just what the objective meaning of the word is anymore.

But the idea that you're a neocon if you try to clean up after wars but you're not a neocon if you get us into all kinds of foreign wars to begin with brings a smile to the face. The possibility that Scowcroft was a neocon for wanting to organize the peace and Rumsfeld wasn't a neocon because he was so careless about what would happen afterwards, is also hard to agree with.

I see that Palin has let two of her advisors go. Maybe it means a change in her orientation. But until recently the idea that she wasn't a neocon or was hostile to neoconservative ideas would have been unproven or even laughable.

I can't help thinking of Bush who went from condemning "nation-building" during the campaign to embracing it with a vengeance after he was elected. That's a good lesson in not taking politicians at their word. Maybe she'd be different, but I wouldn't count on it.

[MichaelCorleone]

Hey Bill - when you get a clue, give us a call...

[Ben Ficklin]

"The NeoCons, of which Scowcroft is a charter member"

Scowcroft is a Realist, not a NeoCon.. In fact Scowcroft is considered to be the leader of the Realist School. The 3 wise old republican realists are Kissinger, Scowcroft, and James Baker. The 3 wise old democrat realists are Brzezinski, Sam Nunn and Lee Hamilton.

There are 3 foreign policy groups in the GOP: Realists, NeoCons, and Isolationists. A GOP president's foreign policy team will be composed of Realists and NeoCons. Usually, Realists will serve as Sec of State and NSA while the SecDef job goes to a NeoCon.

OTOH there are 3 foreign policy groups in the dem party: Realists, Liberal Interventionists, and antiwar pacifists. A dem prez's foreign policy team will always be composed of Realists and Liberal Interventionist and usually the Sec of State job goes to a Liberal Interventionist while Realists will serve as NSA and SecDef.

The Realists dominated GHW Bush's foreign policy while the NeoCons dominated GW Bush's foreign policy. Reagan's first term was dominated by the NeoCons and the Realists dominated the second term.