obama foreign policy

Tonight marks the second Republican primary debate dedicated to foreign policy (which we'll be following in a live chat tonight over on the Member feed beginning at 8PM ET).  Up to this point, we've seen plenty of examples of wrong answers on foreign policy–Herman Cain on Libya, Palestinian right of return; Ron Paul on the American occupation of the Middle East; Perry, depending on your stance, on immigration–but few candidates show a solid command of foreign policy.

In today's Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens has a foreign policy cheat sheet for the candidates.  His shrewdest piece of advice for the candidates is to draw as clear a distinction as possible between the correct foreign policy and President Obama's foreign policy:

What is the basic problem with Barack Obama's foreign policy? It's that he thinks that a speech is a policy, that leadership is a function of popularity, and that consensus equals strength. One speech in Berlin, another in Cairo and a Scandinavian Nobel later, and America's international popularity now plumbs depths that make George W. Bush look like Bono.

Reagan knew better. He didn't mind being hated by the nuclear-freeze crowd in Western Europe so long as he was admired by the leaders of Solidarity in Poland. He won concessions from the Soviet Union by building up the military, not by making pre-emptive offers to placate Andrei Gromyko. He didn't seek a global consensus to liberate Grenada or bomb Libya. He was not tortured by the thought of the U.S. getting out of Unesco. Today, even Democrats concede he was a great president.

Will Democrats say that of Mr. Obama in 20 years?

Parting question for tonight's debate watchers: what are you hoping to hear from your candidate of choice that will earn your confidence in him (or her) as someone with reliable instincts on foreign policy?

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Kelly B
Joined
Oct '11
Kelly B

I can't quote it, but I was quietly cheering Newt's last answer (on the conduct of just wars, I think) at the Family Leader forum over the weekend.  I want evidence of internal clarity and consistency from the candidate, and the ability to make a position externally clear.

That, and a willingness to defend this country's interests properly.

Tom Meyer
Joined
Jan '11
Tom Meyer

Diane Ellis, Ed.

Parting question for tonight's debate watchers: what are you hoping to hear from your candidate of choice that will earn your confidence in him (or her) as someone with reliable instincts on foreign policy?

  1. Some repudiation of President Bush's second inaugural; not everyone wishes to be be free, nor is it our job to ensure that everyone is;
  2. Acknowledgement that US foreign policy should pursue American interest limited only by our morals, rather than our morals as limited by our interest;
  3. Acceptance that the tough-guy approach is not always the best approach; and
  4. A promise to consult with Congress and the American people before the United Nations and NATO when contemplating invasion (unlike President Obama in Libya).
Edited on Nov 22, 2011 at 10:20am
Casey
Joined
Mar '11
Casey

Don't nickel and dime us; give us the big picture.

It seems to me that most modern day world leaders are just trying to make it through the day unscathed.  I don't see any evidence anywhere that any world leader is operating within the framework of a long-term strategic plan.

I want to hear someone offer that long-term strategy and tell me how the actions they would take on current event X serve that strategy.

Illiniguy
Joined
Mar '11
Illiniguy

All I'd like to hear from all of them is a clear statement of what philosophy informs him/her as to what America's vital foreign policy interests consist of. If we know the philosophy, we can predict the responses neccessary to counter a threat to those interests. 

Diane Ellis, Ed.

Tom Meyer

Diane Ellis, Ed.

Parting question for tonight's debate watchers: what are you hoping to hear from your candidate of choice that will earn your confidence in him (or her) as someone with reliable instincts on foreign policy?

  1. Some repudiation of President Bush's second inaugural; not everyone wishes to be be free, nor is it our job to ensure that everyone is;

I mostly agree with you on this first point, but I note that Bret Stephens does not:

We are a nation that believes in the universal aspiration for freedom, sometimes as a well-wisher, sometimes as an interventionist. Historically it has served us well. As the number of democracies in the world has increased, the incidence of war has gone down. Similarly with economics: The more other countries adopt free-market policies, the greater our opportunities for investment and trade.

So let's dispense with President Obama's dumb distinction between nation-building at home and nation-building abroad....

Paul A. Rahe

I would like to hear what they think with regard to China's claims in the South China Sea and with regard to the position developed by the Obama administration.

Tom Meyer
Joined
Jan '11
Tom Meyer

Diane Ellis, Ed.

I mostly agree with you on this first point, but I note that Bret Stephens does not:

We are a nation that believes in the universal aspiration for freedom, sometimes as a well-wisher, sometimes as an interventionist. 

For the record, I don't disagree with this; my quibble would be that we've been a little too much on the interventionist side of late (and not entirely without effect!) but that I'd like the see the pendulum swing back a little.  I'm no Paulista, but I'd be happy for a GOP a little less W.

Diane Ellis, Ed.
Paul A. Rahe: ... and with regard to the position developed by the Obama administration. · Nov 22 at 10:34am

Dr. Rahe, are you referring to Obama's recent decision to start building up a military presence in Australia?  Or something else?

Bryan G. Stephens
Joined
May '10
Bryan G. Stephens

I want to know how they plan to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear threat. I know there is not an easy answer, but we could do it. 

I also want to hear why we need thousands of troops in Europe.

Todd
Joined
Oct '10
Todd

Paraphrasing George Will, my question would go something like this:

"You profess skepticism regarding the government’s abilities to achieve intended effects when it comes to Domestic policy.  Are you equally skeptical about the government’s abilities to achieve intended effects when it comes to foreign policy?"

Claire Berlinski, Ed.

I'm going to try to stay awake for this one.

One thing I'm looking for is an awareness of how massive America's influence and power remains, and how many people--none of whom will be able to vote in this election--will be affected by American foreign policy decisions. Someone worthy of the office will understand that even at this stage of the campaign, a presidential candidate is speaking not just to Republicans, but to the world. I want to see someone who can assure the world that responsible adults are in charge. 

John Marzan
Joined
Oct '10
John Marzan

Are you more likely or less likely to vote for Rick Perry after his interview on Center Seat about foreign affairs? (video)

Freeven
Joined
Dec '10
Freeven
John Marzan: Are you more likely or less likely to vote for Rick Perry after his interview on Center Seat about foreign affairs? (video) · Nov 22 at 6:06pm

I'm just as likely to vote for Perry after that interview. He edged into my number one choice over the past few weeks and he remains there, with Newt a close second.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In