Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
As our own James Poulos noted yesterday, Marco Rubio's major address on international affairs at the Brookings Institution earlier this week planted a flag firmly on one side of a growing chasm within the GOP on foreign policy. Here's a representative passage from the remarks:
... While there are few global problems we can solve by ourselves, there are virtually no global problems that can be solved without us. In confronting the challenges of our time, there are more nations than ever capable of contributing, but there is still only one nation capable of leading.
Now, by contrast, here's Rand Paul in a 2011 speech at Johns Hopkins' School of Advanced International Studies:
I believe we are much closer to being everywhere all the time than nowhere any of the time. And I think this needs to change. Note I didn’t say it “should change,” rather it needs to change, and there are two simple reasons for that: (1) Intervention everywhere, all the time leads to unintended consequences ... (2) We can no longer afford our current foreign policy.
Well, have at it, Ricoteers. Which senator from the class of 2010 is more representative of the direction the GOP's foreign policy should be headed in the years ahead?
- Comment (33)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Dec '11
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
I had a chat just yesterday with a friend of mine who noted the significant downside of the Powell Doctrine - "You break it, you buy it" - approach to warfare. It might work in some places, like post-WWII Europe, but certainly not in others, like post-9/11 Afghanistan, with Iraq perhaps being somewhere in between. It seems that the Powell Doctrine has become the assumed, natural follow-on for any modern military intervention. But should it be? I would argue that more often, "When you break it, break it really well and depart" is the better military option both long and short-term. But I could be wrong.
Dec '11
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
Punitive warfare is historically less successful than the powell doctrine.
Unless you are going to the genocidal point, punitive warfare is only warfare with pauses to reload.
Edited on April 27, 2012 at 6:27pmMay '10
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
Where is the Nixonian voice? What about pure and aggressive self-interest?
Intervene decisively where it's important and stay the heck out where it's not. I realize this doesn't really help with the conundrum of the Middle East, but I would argue that we are engaged in a lackluster, indecisive, apologetic version of this policy now:
"We can bomb Libya because that seems easy, but we can't bomb Syria because there is an election coming up and I need the Yippies to turn out."
It feels almost as if political correctness has made it impossible for us to assert our interest. We are engaged in a global PR battle which we always seem to lose. We want everyone to like us and no one does.
It seems we can answer to the Rubio and the Rand wings by being clearer in our objectives, more discerning in our choices, more decisive in our actions and less apologetic everywhere.
Mar '11
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
I like Rubio, but I am firmly on Rand Paul's side in this case. (Note: Rand seems thus far like a promising Senator. Is it too much to ask that he be the sucessor of his father's small government mantra sans the "Blame America First" baggage?).
The more I read of the founders ideas, the less attractive trying to save the rest of the world seems to be.
Nov '11
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
This is the stuff I mean when I talked about the Republican civil war.
Nov '11
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
This kind of thing made me like Rubio a lot less. I'm tired of America dropping bombs on people and I'm tired of being forced to pay for it.
Aug '10
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
Foreign policy ? Is that a rock band ?
What night exactly will Jon Stewart be explaining all this ?
Like, dude what is the leadership deal with this Rubio guy ? And why do they misspell Raun Paul's name ?
Jan '11
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
I'm desperately trying to see the difference between "you break it you bought it" and The Mouse That Roared.
This was what the duchy of Grand Fenwick depended on.
May '10
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
I've never thought highly of ostriches.
Sep '11
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
Premise: promote "America" as an ideal, as a culture, as a political and moral concept--as opposed to promoting the specific political goals of the current administration leading the U.S. government.
We should focus our time and resources with the following priorities:
We should actively champion economic growth, personal freedom, and the establishment of property rights in Mexico and Latin America.
We should leave the resolution of the failure of European colonialism to the Europeans.
We should move at least 1/3 of the State Dept. staff to Hawaii. Send a nisei ambassador to Japan; a second-generation Korean to Korea; and so forth. Emphasize that Nakagawara, Cho, Phong, Tranh, Rodriguez, and Subramanian are American names.
Evangelize "America" as an ideal.
Sep '10
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
I have come around in the last ten years to being extra careful sending troops out. I am beginning to think the way the Russians operate is perhaps the most effective which is simply make the enemy pay in spades.
The world really is nasty, and trying to avoid atrocities creates even bigger ones. Nip it in the bud. Make them fear you, and stop trying to convince people we are morally superior.
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
Before judging between Marco Rubio and Rand Paul on this matter, I would like to know what they mean in practice. The elder Paul spelled out his position, and it amounted to cutting the defense budget in half and practicing isolationism -- folly of the first water.
The truth is that we have to pick our fights prudently, and we have to do so with an eye to the national interest. If either of these men is a dreamer -- whether on the model of Woodrow Wilson or Ron Paul -- we should reject his counsel. If they are not dreamers, they need to spell out what are the dictates of our long-term interests. Otherwise, all we get is posturing, and we can only guess what they have in mind.
May '10
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
I am proudly PNAC, and if our country- perfectly illustrated by the neo-isolationist views I infer from James, who seems to follow the incoherent Georgetown IR model of game theory- is unwilling to fulfill its essential role as then international adult in the room full of bad actors, we will have earned our disappearance from history as a great power.
By the way, The Powell Doctrine is the most cited bit of stupidity in foreign policy history. It is the same as treating every disease by removing all the patient's internal organs if there is abdominal pain of uncertain origin, rather than doing imaging, drug therapy, endoscopy, etc., and staying at it till the thing is healed.... because we are tired of all that treatment, takes too long, have to keep buying drugs, etc.
1) A full range of respo0nses to foreign threats is necessary
2) Sometimes they take longer and cost more than we like
3) Right-wing isolationism (Lindbergh, Vandenberg, Buchanan, Paul, etc.) does not boast a glorious track record.
Mar '11
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
Drats, Professor, you beat me to it.
If this is indeed a Republican civil war, then it is a phony one, if only because neither side has any idea how to seriously implement their philosophy.
Let's face it: during the Cold War, interventionists and isolationists had tangible policy options available that, at least on paper, were cogent. Today, the difference between the military strategies of the belligerent GWB and the pacifist BHO is a few degrees at best.
Prof Rahe is correct: both of these speeches are posturing. At the moment, our internal political constraints and the messy nature of Gulliver vs. Lilliputian conflicts means that any president, even a hypothetical President John Bolton, will be much more limited in his options than Reagan, Carter or Johnson were.
Mar '11
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
You can take a "mind your own business" approach to the world without ignoring the world. I'm for less of JFK's "We shall pay any price" and more of John Adams' "The American people do not seek dragons to slay abroad".
Mar '11
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
What does being the "adult in the room" mean, practically speaking? Should we bomb Iran? Ground invasion? Attack Syria? North Korea?
I don't mean to provoke as much as find out what these common euphemisms actually stand for. There is so much talk about standing up for Israel, putting pressure on Iran, etc., but at some point action has to be taken against incorrigible regimes for these platitudes to have any meaning. What specific actions would you support, if need be?
Dec '10
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
Flapjack:
.... It seems that the Powell Doctrine has become the assumed, natural follow-on for any modern military intervention. But should it be? I would argue that more often, "When you break it, break it really well and depart" is the better military option both long and short-term. But I could be wrong. · 1 hour ago
Go Roman then go home.
May '10
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
Douglas: I agree with you. Please explain the difference to Senator Paul and his straw men.
Feb '11
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
Franco: I have come around in the last ten years to being extra careful sending troops out. I am beginning to think the way the Russians operate is perhaps the most effective which is simply make the enemy pay in spades.
The world really is nasty, and trying to avoid atrocities creates even bigger ones. Nip it in the bud. Make them fear you, and stop trying to convince people we are morally superior. · 37 minutes ago
This position makes much sense. However, I think that in most of our current foreign policy hot spots, there is real cause to make a distinction between the official government/dictator of a nation vs the people of that nation. With such distinctions in play there really are both moral and practical considerations not answered by shoot em all and let God sort em out.
Edited on April 27, 2012 at 8:35pmMay '10
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
Mendel
What does being the "adult in the room" mean, practically speaking? Should we bomb Iran? Ground invasion? Attack Syria? North Korea?
I don't mean to provoke as much as find out what these common euphemisms actually stand for. ........ What specific actions would you support, if need be? · 1 hour ago
The actions needed against Iran and Syria are pretty obvious- the only reason they were not done already is because Mr. Obama dreamed that his diplomatic charm would win where Bush's warlike ineptitude had failed. In other words, he thought that this was a personal, not strategic, battle. And now that they kind of know better, there is this pesky election in the way.
RE Iran, you provide every form of weapon, intel, commo, and psyops support to the internal resistance, for Israel offer MOAB bunker-busters and support, stop the UN posturing, tell Bibi to do whatever he must do. RE Syria, arm and support the opposition. None of these steps require US ground troops.
North Korea is simpler- stop sending food aid, and help the Lee government in confronting the NoKos, while providing intel and, if necessary, counterbattery support against the Seoul-directed artillery locations.