Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69
Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
In the current discussions regarding the future direction of the GOP as the Republican party seeks to find ways back to leading the nation there are many ideas being suggested. Some of those ideas deserve no consideration, such as abdicating our conservative roots and embracing an expanding government. Other ideas merit serious consideration, such as how we talk about and react to evidence of climate change. Finally there are some ideas which I believe should be embraced by the party quickly to help us build a party culture that will attract the support of reasonable people from across the political landscape. Two such ideas come to mind instantly. One is the need for smaller government. With Democrats in power proposing expansive programs we have already seen out elected Republicans paying lip service to the ideas of smaller government. Some of them might even actually believe what they are saying right now. The second idea that we should embrace without delay is to promote a Humbler Foreign Policy.
This might seem to contradict the longstanding party talking point of having a strong military, but if we stop to look at foreign policy separate from military strength it is easy to see that there is a vast difference between having a big stick and using it excessively.
What, after all, was conservative about George W. Bush’s post-9/11 pledges to "rid the world of evil" and "end tyranny in our world?" Conservatives used to believe that there were limits to the federal government’s capabilities. And yet, today, many of the same people who ridicule "midnight basketball" programs at home support ambitious nation-building projects abroad.
Do we really need new aircraft carriers, fighter planes, and a bigger army to fight men who live in caves, and attack us with box cutters? Why, in an era of trillion-dollar deficits, do we spend more on "defense" than the next 12 nations combined, maintain an empire of over 700 bases in 144 countries, and provide defense welfare for South Korea, Western Europe, and Japan, who are perfectly capable of defending themselves?
Conservatives seem to have forgotten the wisdom of one of their intellectual founders, Russell Kirk, who resisted empire and militarism, and maintained that war had to be a last resort, because it might "make the American president a virtual dictator, diminish the constitutional powers of Congress, contract civil liberties, [and] distort the economy."
(emphasis added)
I would not be one to argue that our military should be reduced in strength or that we should not continually seek to improve our capabilities to match advances in military reality. I would argue that carrying the big stick has led to abuses of our military might and a presidency that has grown alarmingly close to dictatorial in its power. We need to learn the difference between carrying a big stick and owning a big stick. We may have to endure inaccurate accusations of being isolationist but it’s better to be an isolationist than a bully if you must err on one side or the other.
7 replies on “Envision the GOP to Come”
I agree that we have made certain foreign policy commitments that we cannot possibly keep. But I think it is also clear that in this vastly interconnected world, self-preservation might require a certain level of military presence outside of our borders.
If a policy maker shared your perspective that the U.S. should have a more modest foreign military policy, how should that policy maker decide where to commit troops? Is it a case-by-case cost-benefit decision or is there some principle that could guide the decision maker?
I won’t pretend that I could articulate a full policy position here, but I don’t think that it need be, or even should be entirely a case by case basis.
First, although the argument can be made that in an interconnected world we cannot wholly confine our military presence within our own borders, our current number and placement of bases around the world are based on realities that are outdated. Whatever external physical military presence we have should be minimal. Our home-based military should be augmented as much by friendly alliance as by foreign bases and whatever foreign bases we have should only be located in nations we are closely allied with, not just any country that can be persuaded to grant us some space to station bases and troops.
What do you think of the Weinberger Doctrine, a.k.a. the Powell Doctrine, as a limiting principle on the use of military force?
Although it is not an entirely objective test, the Weinberger Doctrine might be a helpful framework. The Weinberger Doctrine is usually used in reference to the use of combat troops rather than the deployment of troops to bases in ally states. Maybe it should be expanded to cover all military operations outside of the United States.
Colin Powell is the most prominent contemporary politician who advocates the Weinberger Doctrine. It is frequently referred to as the Powell Doctrine these days because of that.
Here is a brief summary of the Weinberger Doctrine taken from wikipedia:
1. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
2. U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
3. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
4. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a “reasonable assurance” of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
6. The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.
Here is a link to the speech in which Caspar Weinberger first enunciated his doctrine: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/military/force/weinberger.html.
Essentially I agree with that. I think that it should be applied to deployment and not just combat forces.
I also think that we need to clarify what the “vital national interests of the United States” means and that the support of public opinion is not always a good barometer for our military actions.
I don’t think that economic interests should be considered as a reason to pursue a deployment or combat mission, and there may be times when the public does not recognize a true vital interest so public opinion may need to be disregarded on rare occasions.
The Weinberger/Powell Doctrine sounds pretty good. On #5, please note that public approval of the invasion of Iraq was over 70% before the operation and in the first couple of months after the invasion. While we should adjust as necessary (#4), it is very difficult to gage the fluctuation in the “support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.” Unfortunately, once a commitment is made, we cannot simply stop and go home when public and political support wane. For this reason, the reasons for beginning a combat operation must be almost overwhelmingly compelling or else the operation must be very short lived (i.e. Grenada, and later Panama).
Aside from combat, we have various military installations around the world that have both preventative and preparative purposes. The presence is a disincentive to aggressors and provides staging areas for nipping matters in the bud. For example, we didn’t get directly involved in the Russia-Georgia conflict, but we did provide some backup transportation for our ally. We couldn’t have done that if we did not have our foreign bases.
While we should be far more humble about what we get involved in, I think the isolationist approach is extremely naive and dangerous.
I said we would have to endure accusations of being isolationist.
We have the capacity to have preventative and supportive benefits from our bases without all of our current 700 bases in 144 countries. And I still believe that those foreign bases that we do have should only in nations we are closely allied with.
Reach Upward:
You make a good point about the American Public’s ability to sustain a protracted war. Weinberger, in his speech to the press club, emphasized that constant open communication between the government and the public is the only way to maintain solid support for military effort.
I have two questions for you: (1) What principle do you think should govern the deployment of American troops abroad? Is it possible to define a principle or decision tree, or is it a case-by-case cost-benefit analysis?
(2) What do you mean by isolationist? How do we know if we’ve crossed the line into isolationism? Obviously, we should make sure that no 21st century Germany invades Poland or Czechoslovakia. But does that mean that the U.S. should interfere in every territorial war anywhere in the world? Should the U.S. have intervened directly in the Russia-Georgia conflict?