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:
Mar '11
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
Oh dear! This discussion makes me wonder if U.S. foreign policy will be any better under a future Republican administration than it is now.
From the outside, it appears the U.S.A. does not in fact have a foreign policy. What goes on is a disjointed series of inconsistent posturings not designed to further any national interest but to pander to some internal interest group(s) for a short term political advantage.
Mar '12
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
If the past 12 years have taught us anything, general foreign policy pronouncements by Beltway inhabitants of either party should be treated with deep skepticism. George Bush opposed nation-building in his debates with Gore, yet engaged in the most expensive exercise in nation-building since the Marshall Plan. Democrat concerns with civil liberties in the War on Terror, Gitmo, and the use of military force to democratize the Middle East fell silent the past 3 years. That said, I lean toward Rand Paul's views: whatever one thinks about the effectiveness (or compatibility with American limited government ideals) of the progressive/neo-conservative concept of war as an instrument to spread our values, America can no longer afford that expansive a mission. Foreign Policy Realism, a cold-eyed calculation of our national interest, defined in the least idealistic way, is the only foreign policy a nation increasingly crippled by debt and huge entitlement programs can afford. If idealism and American leadership means boots on the ground for 12 years and a trillion dollars, then we will have to make do with realism's drones and billion dollar punitive go-it-alone strikes. Even Obama gets that.
May '10
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
Mendel- wise words from non-isolationist (obviously, non-Paulian-naif) Charles Krauthammer.
But this thread illustrates our problem on this side- our side is principled, which is why we have both isolationists as fervent as any left-winger UN-true-believer, and internationalists who believe in the necessity of hard as well as soft, power.
So the Left is mostly isolationist, even when, like Obama, they fake concern for fighting bad people, for baldly political reasons, and half of our side is isolationist as well, due to desire to be left alone in the Randian sense (as though Genghis Khan had a libertarian conscience).
That eventual dissipation feeding war weariness leading to isolation is why every great power eventually disappears, as we seem determined to do ourselves.
Mar '11
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
Duane Oyen:
So the Left is mostly isolationist, even when, like Obama, they fake concern for fighting bad people, for baldly political reasons, and half of our side is isolationist as well, due to desire to be left alone in the Randian sense (as though Genghis Khan had a libertarian conscience).
I have to disagree. In the 20th Century, it was the left that was most eager to go adventuring abroad, contradicting their statements about peace and respect for the soveriegnty of other nations. The left has been especially two-faced about this. Woodrow Wilson campaigned against entry in WWI, and then did his best to get us in it. Korea and Vietnam were both started with Democrats at the helm and wound down or finished under Republicans. Clinton got us into a war we had absolutely no business in (Yugoslavia), even if it was limited. Contrast this with GOP presidents. After Korea, Ike's military actions were limited and to the point. In and out. Same with Bush the Elder. Desert Shield, Desert Storm, then done. Dubya has been the exception to the rule, and he had an attack on our soil to spur him.
Mar '11
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
Duane,
thanks for putting some concrete suggestions on the table. However, looking through the options you list, it seems to me there is still a great potential for some very messy situations.
For instance: Even an Israel armed with bunker-busters might not destroy all the Iranian nuclear facilities. Either way, no one knows where Iran will aim its Silkworm missiles after an attack - Saudi oilfields? Our ships in the Gulf? Oil tankers?
I find it telling that GWB, who was not generally adverse to war and had the PNAC at his ear, discouraged Israel from attacking. I imagine that most Republican politicians are aware that neither the US public (including most on the right), nor many of our allies in the Middle East, currently have the stomach for a region-wide shooting match with a country much better armed than Iraq was.
This is why I am frustrated at the hawks on the right. They talk a big game against Obama, but I doubt President Rubio or even President Bolton would pull the trigger against Iran.
Aug '10
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
Can any of us imagine the left avowing a policy of overwhelming force overwhelmingly ?just wondered what the bosses are up to , sorry - back to the important issues of tricking broke collegians juggling gpa , std , and 4gs .
Jan '11
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended....No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."Political Observations" (1795-04-20); also in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (1865), Vol. IV, p. 491War is the health of the state.
Edited on April 28, 2012 at 4:26amDec '10
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
Rubio is right. The United States can only regain its position as a moral beacon for the world if it firmly opposes tyranny, terror, and chaos. A broke country is limited in its ablility to project power globally but many of the suggestions above seem more affordable and even more effective than full scale invasions. Arming opposition groups, economic sanctions, intelligence gathering, diplomatic pressure, and cloak and dagger operations all seem like ways the US can continue to fight brutal governments and terrorist organizations. I wish we could finish the fight against Communism so we could then focus on radical Islam. North Korea is a truly loathsome dictatorship that must be toppled. Cuba should be smothered with Capitalism. Wait till Fidel dies then deal with Raul, end the embargo and flood the place with dollars, investment, tourism.
I think the key is moral clarity, not moral relativism. Bush had the former and Obama embraces the latter.
"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea, With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me: As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, While God is marching on."
Dec '10
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
It is heartening to notice that Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng fled to the US embassy for freedom and protection from his government. He didn't flee to the Russian embassy, the French embassy, or the Brazilian embassy. True democrats who yearn for freedom know who their friend is and who they can count on. Lets' not abandon them.
Jun '10
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
Right smack in the middle. I do not like the logical extensions of either position. I neither want the US everywhere nor nowhere, just where our interests lie, and our interests are to be neatly confined. But where are interests are we need to be there with both feet.
For example, -- Afghanistan and Iraq, our interest based on the facts as we knew them were there. Libya and Serbia not so much. Taiwan yes, Mali no.
Edited on April 28, 2012 at 7:48pmMay '10
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
I judge both to simply statements of fact. The facts however are in transition.
Rubio is correct in that a)USA has relieved most of the western world for the expense and responsibility of defense since WWII + b) We are the world's reserve currency and exert powerful influence + c) We are the world's biggest and most influential economy = most serious differences between countries requires our involvement.
This is changing however. New bilateral pacts and Central Bank gold bullion purchases are lessening our influence in currency influenced trade. In fact the Fed/Treasury decision to export inflation, coupled with the exclusion of Iran from SWIFT, may go down as key steps to our major decline on the world stage.
Senator Paul's point + his two reasons are obvious. Especially the one regarding our inability to continue to absorb the expense involved in heavy global presence. We are broke and can not even meet current obligations, let alone incur major new ones. It's just that most folks and the majority of our govt. have not yet recognized it. That will end sooner rather than later.
Aug '10
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
KC Mulville
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.
***
Wonderful!
May '10
Re: Open Thread Friday: The GOP's Foreign Policy Future
Mendel: Duane,
.................
For instance: Even an Israel armed with bunker-busters might not destroy all the Iranian nuclear facilities. Either way, no one knows where Iran will aim its Silkworm missiles after an attack - Saudi oilfields? Our ships in the Gulf? Oil tankers?
I find it telling that GWB, who was not generally adverse to war and had the PNAC at his ear, discouraged Israel from attacking. ...... region-wide shooting match with a country much better armed than Iraq was.
This is why I am frustrated at the hawks on the right. They talk a big game against Obama, but I doubt President Rubio or even President Bolton would pull the trigger against Iran. · Apr 27 at 5:01pm
Mendel, no one expects that Iran would not try to respond somehow, though the silkworms don't particularly worry me. The biggest issue is probably the temporary spikes in oil prices. Iran is not a military power- they have a few toys and are hollow underneath. They held off Iraq in the '80's by sacrificing their unarmed children.
You can always find an excuse to do nothing. If you believe there are no consequences to doing nothing, we disagree.