I disagree with a lot of this.

What are “clear and vital’ interests? This is a nonsensical phrase that seems to be calculated to mean everything to everybody and really mean nothing.

Fight to win? Again what does that mean? Did at some time we have a policy of fighting to lose? Open ended missions? You mean like Korea and Germany?

No troops under foreign command? So she’s proposing we withdraw from NATO? Right now we have an American brigade serving under a British general in Afghanistan. How does any alliance work if no one allows it’s troops under “foreign command.”

Last resort? Why does that make sense? Was Neville Chamberlain a conservative because he didn’t use force until a last resort instead of stopping the first breach of the Treaty of Versailles in its tracks?

This is just Buchananite pap in pastels.

Despite the brilliance of Palin’s foreign policy (and just about everything else she says), the anti-Palin haters will soon crawl out from under their rocks to call her stupid in 3…2…1…

In its short life, this post (as with almost every Palin-related post) has produced strong and divisive opinions. By the end of the day, I expect that there will be better than 50 comments, some vigorously defending Palin as a female savior, and others denouncing her as stupid and worthless. I write not to defend either point of view, but rather to point out why this situation makes Palin a terrible candidate in 2012. Not only does she isolate independents (who overwhelmingly dislike her), but she cannot even unite readers of RedState, who generally agree on most things. The reasons for this are many, and need not be hashed out here, but it is time to acknowledge that Palin is not our answer in 2012. We need a candidate that can unite conservatives and bring in independents. Palin does neither.

It’s a good thing “everyone knows” that Palin is just a dumb bimbo, else people might think this makes pretty good sense.

Just in case – I was engaging in a bit of sarcasm there.

and she got rid of the so-called “neocon” advisers that were more interventionist.

While I agree that the US MUST stop intervening in every conflict in the world, Palin here seems to be a hypocrite.

Just a few weeks ago she was claiming that the Egyptian military action was justified and that we needed to do EVERYTHING in our power to oust Gadaffi, leaving open the door to ground troops. This statement puts her more interventionist than Obama.

This week she hires new advisers that are less interventionist, and viola! Palin now has a new opinion on the subject.

According to Clausewitz the original policy objective will determine the military objective and the effort put forth to acquire it.

“The political object – the original motive for the war – will thus determine both the military objective to be reached and the amount of effort it requires.”

The questions for Afghanistan should be:

1. What is our policy objective in Afghanistan? Some will say the defeat of Al-Queda and the Taliban. But what does defeat look like. Is it simply making sure they cannot strike us again? Is it demonstrating our ability to launch a successful punitive expedition? Is it complete eradication? Is it converting everyone to a friendly?

2. Is the current COIN strategy and nation building the correct tool to achieve the stated policy object?

3. Is the policy objective worth the effort? Or does the cost of the effort and the chance of success outweigh the value of the initial objective?

Usually the discussion has been between the neo-conservative and paleo-conservative. I would like to see some solid conservative answers an participation in the national debate.

someone show me how this fits into her foreign policy.

We should have no illusions. Gaddafi is a brutal killer and Libya – not to mention the world – would be better off if he were out of power. Now is the time to speak out. Speak out for the long-suffering Libyan people. Speak out for the victims of Gaddafi’s terror. NATO and our allies should look at establishing a no-fly zone so Libyan air forces cannot continue slaughtering the Libyan people. We should not be afraid of freedom, especially when it comes to people suffering under a brutal enemy of America. Here’s to freedom from Gaddafi for the people of Libya.

I’m getting a chuckle over this third grade spitting contest in which some of the posters are involved. It reminds me of why Mr. Know-It-All was only popular in the old Bullwinkle show.

in a political speech. The question I have is what are the other potential Republican nominees articulating?

I’m concerned that we’ve lost our way on foreign policy a bit.

No problem with killing the bad guys.

Just not sure that we are going about it correctly. In WWII, we disarmed the Germans as we went. We didn’t say “Hey everyone gets to keep a submachine gun, just don’t shoot us.”

vis-a-vis Libya. I’ve read the “five points” section three times now to make sure I did not miss anything. Nowhere in the speech does she reverse her initial position on Libya. Her criticism refer to the mission being “ill-defined” and suffering from a “lack of clarity.” To me, it’s clear that she is criticizing Obama’s policy based on points 2-4 of her five points — the use of overwhelming force, clarity of goals and endgame, and foreign command. Because of her first point — “clear and vital American interests” — you are all ASSUMING that she has reversed herself regarding the wisdom of the no-fly zone. But, she never says that. And, if you’ve listened to any of her interviews over the past couple of months where Libya is mentioned, she never objects to the no-fly zone itself, but to how it is being managed. You have to lookk at her criticisms in the speech as part of her overall comments on this subject. She has ripped the Administration for saying Quadafi “must go” and then, the next day, saying that regime change is not part of the operation (even though other NATO allies said it was). She has criticized them for waffling on the targeting priorities of the no-fly zone — are they just to make sure that the Libyan Air Force is grounded, or is the intent to take out ground forces. Now, there are reports that “advisors” may be (or have been) introduced. Finally, the complete transfer of contro over the operation to NATO, with no direct US command, even though the US is providing the bulk of the forces. THAT is what she is menas by “no foreign command.” That is far different than a US brigade attached to a UK division.

I do not believe she has lurched from neo-conservative to neo-isolationist. And, there is nothing wrong with the Powell Doctrine as a guideline for the introduction of forces, especially ground forces (Somalia proved that). May I suggest that everyone just take a deep breath and re-read the relevant portions of the speech again? I think you may agree with me.

And, to RUEXPERIENCED, I believe Palin was VERY skeptical of supporting regime change in Egypt without knowing the true nature of the opposition (re: how involved was the Muslim Brotherhood), and she NEVER said that EVERYTHING had to be done to remove Quadafi — only that he should be stopped from using his AF to slaughter his people on the ground.

“In light of Obama’s morally indefensible and dyslexic policies regarding Egypt, Iran, Israel, Libya, and Syria”

“Dyslexic” I get, but what’s morality got to do with it? How are Obama’s (or anyone else’s) policies in this arena morally wrong, much less morally indefensible?

“the overarching principle of any foreign policy initiative is American exceptionalism”

What does this mean?

“it can be argued that our involvement elsewhere, say in Libya, is an example of a lack of clarity. ”

Is this not a war that Palin herself supported, and with more vigor than B Obama? What national interests were furthered or protected by our mission in Libya?

I’m OK with some of the other stuff, but as streiff said, it’s fuzzy.

altered almost beyond recognition by the cold war.

When we were in the cold war we had an imperative to combat soviet expansion because it represented an existential threat.

(although we now know that the estimates of soviet power and technology were ALWAYS overwrought by our failed intelligence agencies)

This led us to all sorts of foreign adventures, many of them ill thought out and harmful. But conservatives supported them because, we thought we had to, and because the liberals were sure not going to do it.

Now, unfortunately, I think we are still held hostage by a cold war mentality. A way of thinking that says that we are somehow safer, and better off having having armed forces spread out everywhere all around the globe, and have a quick trigger to jump into every little conflict in every hell hole around the planet.

We really cannot afford this approach any longer, and need to think of something else. I would prefer we cancel NATO and enter into a new grand collective security alliance with only Republics who guarantee human rights, and have them pay a share of the cost of collective security commiserate with their population and wealth.

but isnt this the same Palin that was one of the first people to call for a no-fly zone over Libya? If you want to look up “ill-defined mission” an opened no-fly zone over another country would be the definition of that. One could say she is making a major flip flop here on the issue, but I would say you are wrong, that assumption dictates that she has a deep undstranding of what she is talking about in the first place. I would argue, backed up by years of statements from her, that she doesnt have a clue what she is talking about. She is attempting to be a demagogue, but like a dog chasing a car she doesnt know where she is going or even why she is chasing it in the first place.

The Palin Doctrine, Redux
At the risk of (1)—appearing presumptuous, or (2)—risking inadvertently taking quotes out of context, this is properly viewed as an amalgamation of what was written yesterday. It includes no citations other than points derivative of what others typed…with one vital addition. And it is hoped that it will help to “heal” the pseudo-differences that emerged, so that key-distinctions can be corroborated.
My initial reaction against her attack on “nation-building” has not healed, nor has recognition that this speech reflected the influence of a new set of foreign-policy advisors. Whereas she has always been viewed as a non-politician by ardent adherents, this stance is less defensible when she appears to waffle while rephrasing the Powell Doctrine. Certain code-words that have obscured forthrightness, these are detectable.
Is she a “con” who is positioning herself between the “neo” and “paleo” versions? Is this metaphor comparable to BHO placing himself as a “consequentialist” between “realists” and “idealists”? Where is her manifestation of American Exceptionalism beyond adherence to Israel’s survival [and all related repercussions]?
To the best of his ability, Bush-’43 adhered to a muscular foreign policy as articulated in this Wikipedia entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine]; § 3.2 cites Natan Sharansky thusly: “The book argues that replacing dictatorships with democratic governments is both morally justified, since it leads to greater freedom for the citizens of such countries, and strategically wise, since democratic countries are more peaceful, and breed less terrorism than dictatorial ones.” It is this specific HEART of how America projects the Constitution that is sorely missing in her iteration; indeed, that it resembles “rules” more than “principles” serves as a warning-shot that she has not tackled core-concerns from which specific encounters can be deduced.
I would be remiss if I failed to apply my viewpoint to the specifics over which others wrangled. To anyone who attempts to identify ANY “daylight” between American and Israeli interests, he/she is referred to multiple [old/recent] Glenn Beck analyses/syntheses. [And anyone who attempts merely to identify any such wedge—even if not wielded—is targeted for ideological extinction.] Thus, taking into account the need to establish ad-hoc coalitions [such as NATO & the Gulf War] while maintaining control thereover [noting profound problems with the UN], it is vital to maintain clarity when dealing publicly and privately with those who would impugn Sharansky’s vision [and how it is painstakingly manifest].
The decision-making challenges are not always clear-cut, but those who attack America for having helped to create OBL [and, in another breath, noting shifting alliances during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s] are hypocrites, pure-and-simple. The world is dynamic; there is a place for reticence to oppose “devils you know.” But the larger picture [such as the need to oppose those who envision a Worldwide Caliphate] must never be forgotten; if others are refighting The Crusades, we cannot be satisfied by addressing compartmentalized/ad-hoc brushfires.
This is why I have supported [throughout my sentient-life] an aggressive Pax-Americana approach to regional conflicts, and this is why I look to Sarah to promote this type of stridency. This is why raising the criterion of “limits” so very disconcerting, particularly knowing what we know of Iran/Syria. And this is why she would be best advised to maintain awareness of the pitfalls [suffered by many a predecessor] of waffling, for she will become vulnerable to the charge of “inexperience” as a direct result thereof.
No, I am not pleased with this speech, particularly her emphasis on formulating an exit-strategy [which has been used consistently as a euphemism that evades the obvious answer, defeating the enemy]. She may benefit from [re]watching Glenn Beck’s program yesterday [5/3 @ 5 p.m., 5/4 @ 2 a.m.], when he ominously noted that the Arab World may soon unify under an Islamist banner [operationally]; America will then be confronted with a direct challenge to Western Civilization’s survival, and it will be necessary NOW to prepare for such an unprecedented threat.
That there is no naval blockade/quarantine around Iran is shameful; that she cannot address humanitarian concerns is worrisome. That most of the postings may be characterized as ego-generated is appalling; that this debate has to rage within the GOP/Conservatives [reflecting the major schism within the Tea Party Movement, both locally/nationally] is a sad-commentary. That some people falsely frame this conflict as for/against BHO instead of congealing all “statist” attitudes [again, reference Glenn Beck] serves to warn of excess-politicization when existential perils loom; that other people selectively quote history/thinkers to buttress porous logic, this is such a sad commentary on even the most esoteric discourse.
Specifics:
[1]—“clear and vital American interests”: WHAT ARE THEY? [The silence is deafening.] We must promote worldwide freedom, wherever it is needed. [JFK’s Inaugural comes to mind.]
[2]—“fight to win…use overwhelming force…only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible…do not stretch out our military with open-ended and ill-defined missions…Nation building is a nice idea in theory.”: IS THAT ALL? As was previously noted, this would appear to limit involvement to major conflicts, allowing for most others to fester [and predictably become resolved without encompassing American self-interest]. And Daniel Pipes has highlighted the danger of swift withdrawal without provision of sufficient time to allow the seeds of a representative-democracy to take-root.
[3]—“clearly defined goals and objectives”: WHAT ARE THEIR BASIS? Whether we bomb or commit boots-on-the-ground, the alliances created must be solid and funded, based on intelligence [in both major senses of the word].
[4]—“American soldiers must never be put under foreign command”: This is clearly faulty and, alone, will expose her to withering questioning [recalling, for example, the NATO chain-of-command in Afghanistan].
[5]—“sending in our armed forces should be the last resort”: She fails to address the appeasement-scenario of the 1930s, for the world learned of the dangers of procrastination when knowingly-faced with abject-evil.
There is one POTENTIAL saving-grace in her speech, buried in #5: “we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who [sic] are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual. When it makes sense, when it’s appropriate, we will provide them with material support to help them win their own freedom.” That this is cited, this is encouraging. That we will limit America to the provision of support is profoundly disturbing. Confronted with the enemies we know are extant, merely “helping” doesn’t cut-it.
I am displeased; the half-dozen “Palin”-buttons that I sported @ her Bethesda-event this past Saturday-p.m. are now in a drawer…removed from my mantelpiece.

And, yes, I know some of the military brass use it all the time.

The amount of force to use is dictated by the policy objectives the force is designed to achieve. In other words, the goals determine the force used to achieve those goals.

A reflex action or a policy that dictates that overwhelming force is always used is dangerous and often destructive of the very goals desired.

Contrary to popular belief, we often used overwhelming force in Vietnam. On several occasions a patrol would receive sniper fire from a friendly village. The VC and NVC would often insert snipers into these friendly villages to catch the Americans unaware. The patrol, wanting to avoid casualties, would then call in an artillery or air strike on the village. The result is a destroyed village when the stated goal was to win the hearts and minds of the people. Now how far does that go in winning their hearts and minds? The use of overwhelming force has destroyed the very objective of the policy.

I have skimmed the prior comments, and I believe my replies thereto would be derivative of what I already wrote. Nevertheless, if anything requires clarification I’ll be back on-line in four hours. Otherwise, those who would defend Sarah’s elucidation of her foreign policy are invited to perceive the prior e-mail as a “gambit” to which their response(s) will be assessed.

I have refrained from restating the pungent comments and from replying to whatever arguments [for/against Sarah] have been conjured. Certainly, I did not intend to “silence” responses by posting at-length; my goal was credibility. Indeed the interim-comment by Kipling is supportive of my thesis.

To be explicit, it is my hope that the views of John Bolton will be integrated into those articulated by the GOP, and I believe they stand at-variance with those of Sarah.

Yes, they were.

The 5 points that were laid out were dead on and to me, they make perfect sense.

Is that we keep forgetting Clausewitz’s old and time-proven dictum that war is the extension of politics by other means. The underlying problem for us in the Middle East is not that we are drawn like a duck to the puddle to involving ourselves in ill-advised wars, but that we lack any coherent political focus.

Most questions of war and rumors of war arise in the Middle East. It’s a very complicated area, but we can no longer use the fact that it is complicated as a reason to retreat to expediency, as we did with Mubarak and Hussein. Nor can we continue to allow ourselves to be held hostage to oil. And on the other hand, we are witnessing the accretion in power of the Muslim Brotherhood and related jihadist forces.

So … what are our interests? What are our objectives? Whom do we say are our allies? Who are our enemies? Israel has been our most constant ally, and Iran threatens the very existence of Israel; what are we prepared to do in Israel’s defense? These are discussions that must be happening now because we cannot afford a reprise of the way that Obama was seemingly caught flat-footed by the “Egyptian Spring.”