Carolyn Glick: U.S. Needs Sarah Palin’s Foreign Policy, Not Rick Perry’s

By Gary P Jackson

The Jerusalem Post’s Carolyn Glick writes about the dilemma facing the United States, and the world: What sort of foreign policy will our next president have?

Glick goes into detail discussing the three different schools of thought out there: Isolationism, neo-conservatism, and Jacksonian/Reaganesque. We know isolationism doesn’t work, and as Glick points out, America’s isolationist foreign policy in the last century actually led to two world wars, as the enemies of Liberty and Freedom were emboldened by a passive United States.

Neo-conservatism, nation-building, has been a disaster in many ways, and has us fighting in three different wars with no real master plan or objective.

It’s Jacksonian/Reaganesque foreign policy that Glick advocates, as do most Americans. It’s a policy of intervention when it makes sense, and with a specific goal and outcome in mind. Speaking of Reagan and the Jacksonian principles, she writes:

In truth, the dominant foreign policy in the Republican Party, and to a degree, in American society as a whole is neither neoconservativism nor isolationism. For lack of a better name, it is what historian Walter Russell Mead has referred to as Jacksonianism, after Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the US. As Mead noted in a 1999 article in the National Interest entitled, “The Jacksonian Tradition,” the most popular and enduring US model for foreign policy is far more flexible than either the isolationist or the neoconservative model.

According to Mead, the Jacksonian foreign policy model involves a few basic ideas. The US is different from the rest of the world and therefore the US should not try to remake the world in its own image by claiming that everyone is basically the same. The US must ensure its honor abroad by abiding by its commitments and standing with its allies. The US must take action to defend its interests. The US must fight to win or not fight at all. The US should only respect those foes that fight by the same rules as the US does.

The U.S. president that hewed closest to these basic guidelines in recent times was former president Ronald Reagan. Popular perception that Reagan was acting in accordance with Jacksonian foreign policy principles is what kept the public support for Reagan high even as the liberal media depicted his foreign policy as simplistic and dangerous.

For instance, Reagan fought Soviet influence in Central America everywhere he could and with whomever he could find. Regan exploited every opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union in Europe. He worked with the Vatican in Poland. He deployed Pershing short-range nuclear warheads in Western Europe. He called the Soviet Union an evil empire. He began developing the Strategic Defense Initiative. And he walked away from an arms control agreement when he decided it was a bad deal for the US.

Throughout his presidency, Reagan never shied away from trumpeting American values. To the contrary, he did so regularly. However, unlike the neoconservatives, Reagan recognized that advancing those values themselves could not replace the entirety of US foreign policy. Indeed, he realized that the very notion that values trumped all represented a fundamental misunderstanding of US interests and the nature and limits of US power.

If a Jacksonian president were in charge of US foreign policy, he or she would understand that supporting elections that are likely to bring a terror group like Hamas or Hezbollah into power is not an American interest.

He or she would understand that toppling a pro-American dictator like Mubarak in favor of a mob is not sound policy if the move is likely to bring an anti-American authoritarian successor regime to power.

A Jacksonian president would understand that using US power to overthrow a largely neutered US foe like Gaddafi in favor of a suspect opposition movement is not a judicious use of US power. Indeed, a Jacksonian president would recognize that it would be far better to expend the US’s power to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad — an open and active foe of the US and so influence the identity of a post-Assad government.

For all the deficiencies of the neoconservative worldview, at least the neoconservatives act out of a deep-seated belief that the US as a force for good in the world and out of concern for maintaining America’s role as the leader of the free world. In stark contrast, Obama’s foreign policy is based on a fundamental anti-American view of the US and a desire to end the US’s role as the leading world power. And the impact of Obama’s foreign policy on US and global security has been devastating.

From Europe to Asia to Russia to Latin America to the Middle East and Africa, Obama has weakened the US and turned on its allies. He has purposely strengthened US adversaries worldwide as part of an overall strategy of divesting an unworthy America from its role as world leader. He has empowered the anti-American UN to replace the US as the arbiter of US foreign policy. And so, absent the American sheriff, US adversaries from the Taliban to Vladimir Putin to Hugo Chavez to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are empowered to attack America and its allies.

In the coming months, Republican primary voters will choose their party’s candidate to challenge Obama in next year’s presidential elections. With all the failings of the neoconservative foreign policy model, it is clear that Obama’s foreign policy has been far more devastating for US and global security.

Still, it would be a real tragedy if at the end of the primary season, due to neoconservative intellectual bullying the Republican presidential nominee was forced to choose between neoconservativism and isolationism. A rich, successful and popular American foreign policy tradition of Jacksonianism awaits the right candidate.

Read the entire article here.

In her article, Glick names names. Obviously Ron Paul is the leader of the very dangerous isolationist movement. Anyone who saw the latest Republican candidate debate, where Paul said it was quite OK for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, understands why that kind of thinking is not only dangerous for the United States, but the entire world. Yes, other nations have nuclear weapons, but mostly as a deterrent. Iran is the one nation that would most certainly use these weapons without regard for the consequences.

We’re familiar with the neo-conservatives. George W Bush was pulled in that direction after September 11. Before that, he had been dead set against nation building and even preemptive strikes. Obviously the events of the worst attack on American soil changed things. As noble as his intentions were, we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan for the foreseeable future, with no clear direction.

Rick Perry has surrounded himself with Bush’s foreign advisors including Donald Rumsfeld, and Douglas Feith, a man who General Tommy Franks describes as “the dumbest f*cking guy on the planet!”

Rumsfeld disagrees, but Feith’s record is troubling:

Feith’s office was also responsible for the oversight of military prisons, including Abu Ghraib. And it turns out that Feith himself masterminded the policy of ignoring the Geneva Conventions against torture. Nevertheless, Secretary Rumsfeld defended his deputy in August 2004 when he told the press that Feith is “just a rare talent

He is one of the intellectual leaders in the administration” and “without question one of the most brilliant individuals in government.” After his 2005 resignation, the Pentagon’s Inspector General investigated Feith’s office for supplying pre-war intelligence assessments — at odds with findings of the intelligence community — outlining strong ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The Inspector General’s office found Feith’s work “inappropriate” but not illegal.

Other than his long standing open borders wish for Mexico and Texas, Perry has said very little on foreign policy, except the usual soundbites we get from politicians. So the only way we can really judge Perry is by the company he is keeping. It appears he will be following in the tradition of the Bush administration and be a nation building neo-con.

That brings us to the Jacksonian, or as I prefer, Reaganesque school of foreign policy. Of all the candidates for President [and yeah, she’s a candidate] Governor Sarah Palin is the only one who has a solid, stated, foreign policy. The “Palin Doctrine” if you will.

Speaking at Colorado Christian University (CCU) on May 2, 2011, in tribute of our troops, Sarah Palin went into detail concerning her foreign policy: [emphasis mine]

There’s a lesson here then for the effective use of force, as opposed to sending our troops on missions that are ill-defined. And it can be argued that our involvement elsewhere, say in Libya, is an example of a lack of clarity. See, these are deadly serious questions that we must ask ourselves when we contemplate sending Americans into harm’s way. Our men and women in uniform deserve a clear understanding of U.S. positions on such a crucial decision. I believe our criteria before we send our young men and women—America’s finest—into harm’s way should be spelled out clearly when it comes to the use of our military force. I can tell you what I believe that criteria should be in five points.

First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake. Period.

Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that, we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not stretch out our military with open-ended and ill-defined missions. Nation building is a nice idea in theory, but it is not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.

And third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly and concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent into battle. Period.

Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side with our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and the command of American officers.

Fifth, sending in our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who 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.

We are not indifferent to the cause of human rights or the desire for freedom. We are always on the side of both. But we can’t fight every war. We can’t undo every injustice around the world. But with strength and clarity in those five points, we’ll make for a safer, more prosperous, more peaceful world because as the U.S. leads by example, as we support freedom across the globe, we’re going to prove that free and healthy countries don’t wage war on other free and healthy countries. The stronger we are, the stronger and more peaceful the world will be under our example.

Read more and watch her speech here.

Like any policy Governor Palin sets forth, you can state the essence of the “Palin Doctrine” in two words: Common sense. We can’t be the world’s policeman, and we can’t right every wrong. That said, we can indeed remain the strongest power for good in the world, and lead by example. A strong United States always means a safer world. Remember, Reagan, with his “Peace through strength” policies, won the Cold War without firing a single shot.

In furtherance of her doctrine, Sarah hired Peter Schweizer, the man who literally wrote the books on how Reagan won the Cold War. Schweizer is a fellow at the Hoover Institute, and rock solid as an adviser.

One more piece of Governor Palin’s strong foreign policy, is also a strong national security policy, and something no one else is really talking about, and that’s an aggressive national energy strategy.

Sarah Palin will be the Energy President. She will be aggressively working to make the United States energy independent with an “all of the above” approach that will include opening up exploration of our own resources as well as the use of alternatives that make economic sense.

A strong energy policy, one that makes dependence on foreign sources of energy obsolete, will put the United States in a stronger position to deal with rogue nations and foreign powers, that work against our best interests, without the concern of interruptions in our energy supply. This is a bigger deal than most imagine.

It’s seems with our economy in free-fall, and all of the disastrous policies the Obama regime is implementing, foreign policy has sort of dropped off the map. People aren’t paying much attention. The fact is, a successful president must have a strong understanding of how the world works, and a solid policy for dealing with it. Sarah Palin is the one candidate who has this, and has had it for years. Sarah Palin is the one proven leader who will make it work. The one leader we can trust.

34 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, Ronald Reagan, sarah palin

34 responses to “Carolyn Glick: U.S. Needs Sarah Palin’s Foreign Policy, Not Rick Perry’s

  1. IwjwI

    I’m convinced that Sarah Palin has right plan an vision to cure the U.S. of the creeping Obamanation cancer that has been killing us.

    It will take hard work to get this country out of it’s death spiral, but it can be done. We may have to start from nothing to rebuild our greatness by the time the reign of Obama terror is over at his ousting in 2012.

    We will prevail and with Sarah Palin’s help we will be able to right the many wrongs that Obama has done to us.

  2. Pingback: Carolyn Glick: U.S. Needs Sarah Palin’s Foreign Policy, Not Rick Perry’s (via A Time For Choosing) | My Blog

  3. Cloddia Jane Darrow

    You’ve got to be kidding. Palin would have us in a war faster than you can say World War Three.

  4. Pete Barone

    I believe she is the only one who could beat BO

  5. Rick Fisk

    Ron Paul an isonationist. LOL. What’s more isolationist? Dropping bombs on harmless countries or trading with them instead? Duh.

    • Gary P

      What “harmless country” are we dropping bombs on?

      Ron Paul’s foreign policy is naive and dangerous. The nutter thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. That’s beyond idiotic.

      Paul has said exactly one thing in his life that makes sense, and that’s “End the Fed” past that, he’s a raving lunatic, and you can quote me on that!

  6. Sarah Palin was NEEDED LAST ELECTION — but the obama machine ran rough shod over her — without truth or basis for doing so. The kook-aide drinkers are going to vote for obutthole again — EVEN though he is CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE!! Dual Citizen by his own words and admissions. Sarah Palin is AMERICAN, common sense and fortitude! (she could take oblunderbut with one hand tied behind her back!!) — – IF she runs she has my vote!! I voted for her last time — only Mclame was on the ticket — I can’t stand that RINO — but I voted FOR SARAH — IF she runs for President I will VOTE FOR HER AGAIN!

    • Gary P

      So true. Inn 2008 my vote was for Sarah. McCain was just part of the package.

      Not to be picky, but Sarah was right in the middle of the last election 2010, and helped us take back the House and gain seats in the Senate. Largest turnover in state legislatures since Reconstruction after the Civil War, over 660 democrats lost their jobs!

      2012 will be the battle of our lives.

  7. Pingback: The Palin Doctrine - TeamstersOnline

  8. slipperypete@yahoo.com

    I agree with Palin on points one through 4 but then she gets to point 5 and approaches a position that most Americans are not comfortable with at this point in history.

    “The stronger we are, the stronger and more peaceful the world will be under our example.”

    I think this is a dangerous philosophy. It implies that we will continue to build our military overseas. We can’t afford this and it does imply we are the world’s police.

    Also, I don’t understand why you support funding our military personnel with salaries that will be spent overseas. Bring our troops home. Protect our borders and let that money flow into our economy.

    Also, I don’t share the same fear of Iran as you do. As long as we are name calling, I think its beyond idiotic to assume Iran would use a nuclear weapon. That would be suicide for them.

    • Gary P

      Throughout history the stronger America has been, the safer the world has been. That’s just a fact.

      And if you don’t think Iran wouldn’t use their nukes, you are quite naive and don’t understand the mindset of their leaders. They believe in order for the Twelfth Imam to reappear, there must be a extremely violent event. Nuking Israel, or even the United States, would do it.

      Radical Muslims have no problem dying for Allah. It’s written in their DNA.

      Oh, and those nukes were aren’t supposed to worry about? Iran is already placing nuclear capable medium range missiles in Venezuela. These missiles can reach targets in the United States. We reported this back in December. So yeah, Ron Paul’s “let em have nukes” is dangerous, and idiotic.

      https://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/iran-placing-medium-range-missiles-in-venezuela-that-can-reach-the-u-s/

      • Pete Samuel

        I posted a response, would appreciate being part of this conversation and would like to see what others think.

      • Gary P

        Sorry, sometimes moderation is slower than others. This is definitely a subject we want debate on!

  9. Pingback: Walter Russell Mead: Sarah Palin: America’s Foreign Policy Messiah? | A Time For Choosing

  10. Pete Samuel

    I don’t agree that our military has made the world a safer place. Think of how we supported the Afghan freedom fighters against the Soviet Union. That led to the uprising of Osama bin Laden. Same with Iraq. We gave them a bunch of money and built their military to fight in the Iran-Iraq war. 3 years after the Iraq-Iran war, we are fighting Iraq. Ten years after that, we are invading Iraq.

    Regarding your philosopy on Iran, I don’t believe an entire regime is out to destroy the world to bring about a Muslim awakening. Its more plausible that Iran feels threatened and is attempting to show their military strength to make their enemies think twice. Again, the US supported Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. George W proclaimed Iran, Iraq, and North Korea the Axis of Evil. We invaded one of theses axises under the premise that they had WMDs. Hypothetically, had Bush stayed in power or had we finished the Iraq war while Bush was in power, Iran was in his sights. They know this.

    This was a big reason Obama won the election. McCain/Palin campaigned on a aggressive stance towards Iran. In fact, McCain jokingly sang during a speech, “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”. If I’m an Iranian, that causes me great concern that a large segment of the US population — the country with the strongest military, a country that has been involved with wars on our soil in the past — is making war cries towards my country.

    I’m not saying we should ignore Iran but we need to tone down the rhetoric. If we pursue a policy of aggression instead of diplomacy, history shows us the end result will be expensive and ugly. If you read more about Paul, you’ll better understand Paul’s position. Aggression leads to aggression. And as our founding fathers believed, we can better achieve peace and preserve liberty by avoiding war at all costs.

    Instead of “The stronger we are, the stronger and more peaceful the world will be under our example.” That is unbelievably egotistical and misguided.

    • Gary P

      History disagrees with with you. Every time America has pulled away from being the world’s superpower, the rest of the world has gotten brave. Both world wars came from the sort of foreign policy you favor.

      America leading the world goes all of the way back to Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates, Muslim raiders who terrorized the open seas. Other nations paid these terrorists “tribute” to leave their ships alone. As long as we were under British rule, most of our cargo came through fine. As Americans, we had no intention of paying terrorists.

      These pirates murdered, stole, and forced survivors into slavery.

      This turned ugly, but we wiped em out, and made the shipping lanes safe from the entire world.

      Obama won the election because the media never vetted him, and the nation bought into his BS about hope and change, whatever the hell that is.

      This is why, as Republicans, we are vetting our candidates come hell or high water.

      The only thing about McCain joke is he told it so poorly.

      I still remember Ronald Reagan having some fun on what turned out to be a hot mike.

      Sarah Palin has it right. We can’t be the world’s policeman, nor can we right every wrong, but a strong America means a safe world. Hundreds of years of history bear this out.

      With Iran building nukes and putting nuclear capable missiles in Venezuela capable of hitting major cities in the United States, you damned right we are going to have to take on Iran at some point.

      The sad thing is, that idiot Obama had a chance to take em all out without firing a single shot. After years of President Bush telling the Iranian people our quarrel was not with them, but their leaders, the Iranian people wrongly believed Obama was of the same character and bravely rose up.

      Instead of standing with the Iranian people, Obama took the side of the terrorists who run Iran, and the brave Iranians were slaughtered in the streets.

      One has to wonder, when the radical Muslim Brotherhood, with ties to al Qaeda, Hamas and every other terrorist group started toppling stable governments in the Middle East, Obama backed them.

      Obama allow the Iranian government to slaughter it’s own Freedom seeking people may be one of the most evil things the man has ever done. If there was ever a fight we should have joined, that was it.

      • Pete Samuel

        When it comes to the Middle East, history does agree with me as I spelled out in my previous post. Iraq, Iran, Osama bin Laden, etc.

        As far as your examples, WWI and WWII were global efforts, not efforts solely led by the US. I disagree that we should be the security for all the shipping lanes across the world because of some pirates. At this point in history, that burden needs to be shared. Those are our tax dollars.

        Obama did not win the election on hope and change. He won because independents were sick of the neoconservative idea that we should be the world’s police. His record on Afghanistan and Iraq is consistent with his campaign message and consistent with his policies while in office.

        I agree that his domestic policies have been suspect at best but his foreign policies have been solid. I don’t necessarily agree that we should have got involved with Libya because I still don’t think we give enough consideration to the long-term consequences of taking action in the Middle East. This has proven to be costly over the last century in our relations with Iran, Iraq, and how that has come back to haunt us.

        However, I do give Obama credit that we did not take the lead on this and will not be the only country Libya looks to while rebuilding their country (whether that rebuilding is a success or failure).

        Your comment:
        “Obama allow the Iranian government to slaughter it’s own Freedom seeking people may be one of the most evil things the man has ever done. If there was ever a fight we should have joined, that was it.”

        This gets to the heart of it. The GOP hardliners like Bush, McCain, Bachmann, Perry and yourself, would prefer to shoot first and ask questions later. We need to be a lot more careful in how we engage in the Middle East and we need the support of other countries, the support of our Congress, and the full support of the citizens of that country. That was not the case.

        As far as your report on Iranian missles in Venezuela, both the US and Venezuela have denied it. So until there is proof and I’m sure our intelligence is on top of it, you can’t take a stance that assumes there are missiles there and determine that we should bomb the hell out of Iran before they bomb us. That is exactly the stance we took with Iraq and we all know how that turned out.

        http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-21/world/venezuela.iran.missiles_1_missile-base-report-bolivarian-revolution?_s=PM:WORLD

      • Gary P

        We stand by our reporting on the Missiles being place in Venezuela. OF COURSE, the Chavez government will deny it, as will Iran. The Soviets denied they were placing nukes in Cuba too! As for our government, well, consider the source.

      • Seattle

        Pete,
        Excuse me, but Iraq was a global effort too and you do a disservice to all the countries who supplied troops (many who died alongside Americans and Iraqis), intel and various other forms of expertise and help towards that effort, both overtly and covertly. If you are unaware of the extent of the global effort that was Operation Iraqi Freedom, I must, with respect, say that you are horribly misinformed on this aspect of that war. Pres. Bush and his administration worked long and carefully to have a coalition with the USA.
        http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

        And I believe Gary’s reference to “Barbary Pirates, Muslim raiders” was him referring specifically to Islamist terrorists who plagued the world’s seas for centuries, not just any ‘ole run-of-the-mill Pirate, or necessarily the pirates near Somalia today (though Islamism is not a new idea for some of the motivations of the latter, I’d imagine).
        http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/barbary.htm

        If you want a good source on actual piracy occurring in TODAY’s day and age, versus the Barbary pirates “of old”, I suggest this web site. He has been writing on maritime security here at this site for the last 8-9 years.
        http://www.eaglespeak.us/

        Finally, I shall say that Obama’s “foreign policies” (what a misnomer) AND his domestic policies are a complete NIGHTMARE. The end of his term cannot come soon enough.

  11. Seattle

    Hello Pete,

    Now, I am not an expert on philosophy, or on military thought, nor do I claim to be one on tv, as they say. I am just a woman born the same year as Sarah Palin, which is also the same year of President Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” speech – yes?

    Anyway, you write, “Its more plausible that Iran feels threatened and is attempting to show their military strength to make their enemies think twice.” Pete, unfortunately, the leaders in Iran are not a bunch of passive, flower-holding peaceniks, who mean no harm to anyone. You write, “Aggression leads to aggression.” Does the United States exist in a vacuum? Do we just run around “aggressing” hither and yon for no good reason? No. I don’t think so. If we see an aggression “coming our way”, I do think we have a right to try to head that off. We are trying to respond to threats to our nation’s security and interests, to the security of our citizens. However, neoconservatives not only have different ideas, maybe, of what signifies a dire threat to our nation, they have different ideas of what a response to a deemed national threat should be, as compared to a response from a purely Jacksonian type of thought. Problem is, neither a neoconservative military stance nor a more Jacksonian stance exist in a vacuum either, just as the USA does not exist in a vacuum. Waters have been muddied between the two or three (or more) ways of thinking. I think an isolationist wants to exist in a vacuum, perhaps, but I have doubts that that is possible, especially today. (You can tell me if I am wrong on that, I don’t personally endorse Ron Paul’s foreign policies. ) I think a neoconservative (in this, I mean, a person whose foreign policy desires may include wanting to install a democracy in another nation and “nation-build it” to a “better life”, often by using our military to do so) has a different approach to reasons for going to war than a Jacksonian. By a Jacksonian, here in this case, I mean pretty what much what Glick states that Mead’s foreign policy model is: “..a few basic ideas. The US is different from the rest of the world and therefore the US should not try to remake the world in its own image by claiming that everyone is basically the same. The US must ensure its honor abroad by abiding by its commitments and standing with its allies. The US must take action to defend its interests. The US must fight to win or not fight at all. The US should only respect those foes that fight by the same rules as the US does”. (I personally think that point 3 can get mushy, and can be abused by all schools of thought. “The US must take action to defend its interests.” Seems a big loophole to me; perhaps this is where the isolationists might have the most contention? On matters of national security, well — I think that can be a more clear reason for deciding whether to go to war with a country.)

    Now, I am not a member of the military nor do I claim to be one on tv, as they say. And I’ll put aside how I feel about us going into Iraq, e.g. whether I was for it or against it.

    But to bring us to the approx time-frame of 2007-2008 (and the Presidential campaigning time-period), I am inferring that you seem to think that Iran has innocently lived side-by-side Iraq, and esp. so during Operation Iraqi Freedom and up to current day, and that they do not have American blood (and Iraqi blood) on their hands? That they are not “aggressive” to the USA, and so why on earth is the USA being aggressive towards Iran? That they are oh, so very diplomatic and kind, so why on earth did John McCain have aggressive rhetoric in 2008 towards Iran? And are they diplomatic and kind towards our ally, Israel?

    Iran has been, covertly and overtly, actively aiding anti-U.S. fighters and movements while we have been in Iraq –and while we have NOT been in Iraq– (and, for that matter, while we have been in –or NOT been in– other places across the world) for decades.

    Do you believe that we had, or have, no cause for aggression, when we or our allies are threatened or killed by Iran or their proxy fighters?!

    A lot was going on, foreign-policy wise, from 2003-2008, and even now. The Spring of 2008 was especially complicated, it seems to me. Senator McCain was privy to a lot of information to which I imagine we were not privy. His joke about bombing Iran was a poor joke by an elderly statesman or politician, in my opinion, but I do believe he had, and has, a better knowledge and recognition of our nation’s threats than I do. And there are also more people, I would imagine, with higher security clearances than John McCain.

    The Iranian Quds Force has sent proxies, operatives, political allies, munitions and weapons, and money, into Iraq for years. During 2007-2008, just to take one section of time that may apply to the 2008 Presidential campaign, Iran’s influence in Iraq was significant. The proxy war Iran was conducting in Iraq against US forces was obvious to many, had been for years, with the Al Quds and even Hezbollah [Iranian influences] leading and supporting the Shia militias like the al Sadr forces and Badr Organization, against our troops, against the MNF-1, and against the Iraqi forces. The new Iraqi govt was just a few years old. The internal politics in Iraq was complicated. And Iran was doing all it could to mess with those internal politics. al-Maliki did not help clarify things either.

    (Let us not forget, too, all the things that were going on with Israel and the middle east, 2006-2008, and that the world community was also trying to pin down what Iran was up to with its “peaceful nuclear program”. And that Pelosi controversially went to meet Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, about “peace talks” with Israel in Spring of 2007. Very unhelpful. Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism. And I like to call Iran a state sponsor of Syria.) The Middle East was a might shaken up place at the time. Not to say it is different now, alas.

    Anyway, I recommend the following reading regarding Operation Iraqi Freedom and Iran, just as a starter… but to end my post, I guess i would say that you stated, “I don’t agree that our military has made the world a safer place”. I would ask you to recognize that aggressive and evil military forces, countries, insurgents, terrorists, criminals, etc., exist coincident with our United States military, and that a lot of people in the world, the people who are also victims of these forces along with us, are grateful that we fight the good fight.

    http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/the-evolution-of-iran%E2%80%99s-special-groups-in-iraq

    http://www.irantracker.org/military-activities/irans-hard-power-influence-iraq

    http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=11920

    http://www.understandingwar.org/region/kadhimiyah

    http://www.captainsjournal.com/category/quds-force/

    • Paul Samuel

      Regarding the US led invasion of Iraq, I agree other countries were involved but it was ultimately the influence of Bush and the United States to invade Iraq. Yes, we had support from other countries but as it became evident that Iraq did not have WMDs, that support quickly evaporated.

      Here’s a quote from Powell on the lack of intelligence and his regret for selling it to the American people, “will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It’s painful now” Bush upon leaving office, “The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq,” Let’s be real here, the Iraq war was a mistake. Most rational people agree with this. I’d ask you to accept this as fact.

      Obama on the other hand was spot on with the Iraq war and he succeeded in finishing the job with Osama and in terms of Libya, even Karl Rove gave him a B last night of Fox. Based on the Karl Rove scale, I think that’s at least an A- based on his disdain for Obama. I think calling his foreign policies a nightmare is a little extreme.

      As for the pirates, we should not be paying for the security of shipping lanes in other countries. Those are our tax dollars spent for other’s security and our military personnel spending tax payer dollars in foreign countries.

      “the leaders in Iran are not a bunch of passive, flower-holding peaceniks, who mean no harm to anyone”

      It was not my intention to portray the Iran leadership as hippies but that is a funny concept for an SNL skit. My point is we should try to accept that Iran may be looking out for their best interests and have no intent to destroy themselves in the name of Allah. We should also accept that our participation in this region since the 1950’s does not relieve us of the responsibility that we may have caused some of this instability as we tried to bring peace to the region through force. And moreso, how that instabiility continues to pull us into conflicts we cannot afford.

      Ron Paul on Iran and Isolationism begins @ 3:24

      I also think its worth noting the contributions Ron Paul and Obama have received from military personnel.

      http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/07/ron-paul-military-campaign-donations-/1

      Hope this helps. I understand your concerns but we need to stop with policies that have failed. United States is not able and cannot afford to use military strength to bring peace to this world.

      • Gary P

        There’s no difference between a National Socialist (Hitler) A Communist Socialist (Stalin) Or an American National Socialist like Obama. None what -so-ever. That Obama hasn’t started executing people yet doesn’t mean his kind aren’t ready to do it.

        Did you watch the video of Larry Grathwohl? He was a member of The Weather Underground. That’s Bill Ayers’ terrorist group. They were ready to murder 25 million Americans, the number they figured wouldn’t go along with their plan to turn The United States into a communist nation, and they were DEAD SERIOUS.

        Barack Obama started his political career in communist-terrorist Bill Ayers’ living room. Before that Obama sat on several phony “education” foundations started by communist-terrorist Bill Ayers.

        So please, don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining!

  12. Pete Samuel

    Just realized I read your reference to WWI and WWII wrong. However, I think its a different world these days. Most Western European have a military that is capable of protecting themselves and as the Libya conflict shows, capable of leading an offensive.

  13. Pete Samuel

    I posted something earlier, still hasn’t come through. What’s up with this website? Facebook shows up right away, most community boards work the same way? Does someone need to moderate every post?

    Here’s some more on Paul:
    http://www.newsmax.com/DougWead/iran-nuclear-assad-syria/2011/08/24/id/408529

    • Gary P

      It’s just me moderating comments and sometimes it takes a bit longer than others.

      That said, you aren’t gonna pick up many Ron Paul fans around here, especially not on foreign policy. On this Paul is about 3 centuries too late. Maybe 4.

      Ron Paul has said exactly one thing in the last 40 years that made a lick of sense and that was audit the Fed. Past that, he’s dangerous and his sort of foreign policy would get a lot of people killed.

  14. Seattle

    Pete, This is not Facebook. This is not a community board. This is a blog by a private citizen, and the owner can choose to post what he wishes. The Comments policy is made clear in the brief, simple navigation bar. I read this policy before I bothered posting- knowing I always have a choice to involve myself or not. I knew after I read it that nothing guarantees my posts will get chosen to get posted. Even this one may not get posted. I accept that. I write unrequited, knowing it is the blog owner’s choice. If I write, and let slip words that the blog owner does not want to publish on this personal blog, it was made clear to me at the outset that my post could be edited, or simply left to wallow by its lonely self in the nethersphere of Who Knows What Happened To It.

    If you did not like what you read in the Policy section regarding Commenting, you can choose not to write to this blog – ever.

    Point is, it is not a question of, “I am entitled or have a constitutional right to have my post posted on ‘A Time for Choosing’, and I shall worry or feel offended if you don’t post it.”

    There is an audience and intent for this blog; I doubt it is meant to be a multitudinous heap of automatic postings. (Busy people get bored of, often have no time for, that kind of venue anyway, in my opinion.)

    • Gary P

      Eh, I wouldn’t get to worked up over that one. He outed himself as a full-blown Alex Jones cultist spewing nonsense about Sarah Palin and the Alaska Independence Party, a lie, and Bush families ties to the Nazis. Another lie.

      He’s convinced that only Herr Doktor Ron Paul can save the world. A true cultist.

      He won’t be wasting any more of our time.

  15. Philip Secession

    Wait to fight the good fight guys. We’ll win this election for sure with guys like you spreading the good word.

  16. Pingback: Sarah Palin Our Republic Can Only Survive if We Don’t Embrace The Status Quo | A Time For Choosing

  17. Pingback: Eight Legit Reasons Why Sarah Palin is the Only Logical Choice to be Our Nation’s Next Vice President | A Time For Choosing

  18. Pingback: Leadership Flashback: The Palin Doctrine-Governor Sarah Palin’s Five Requirements for Military Action | A Time For Choosing

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s