By Gary P Jackson
Last week Governor Sarah Palin laid out her powerful case for NOT getting involved in the Syrian conflict. As you can imagine, it generated quite a stir.
In reporting on Governor Palin’s position, I reminded readers about Sarah Palin’s real world experience as Commander-in-Chief in Alaska, a serious position, that saw the Governor receive regular high level national security briefings, and gave her Shared Strategic Command of the 49th Missile Battalion, the United States’ first line of defense from ballistic missile attacks.
I also was reminded of something foreign policy author Carolyn Glick wrote back in August of 2011, just as the 2012 presidential election season was starting to get hot and heavy. Glick wrote in the Jerusalem Post that the United States, and the world, needed Sarah Palin’s brand of common sense foreign policy vs the neo-con’s adventurism and interventionism [like John McCain, Rick Perry, etc] or libertarian’s notion of isolationism.[like Ron Paul and his ilk]
I noted Glick’s article, and also included a link to one of ours that reported on a speech Governor Palin gave in Colorado, at Colorado Christian University (CCU) on May 2, 2011. The occasion of that speech was a huge national rally honoring our brave troops. At this speech, Governor Palin laid out what has come to be known as the Palin Doctrine, a serious, common sense policy that she, if President, would look to, when considering the use of military force around the world.
In looking at this, it’s essential to remember, that not only was Governor Palin exposed to top level national security information, and had to, at the very least, have thought about what would happen if America was attacked on her watch, but also that her eldest son, Track, served several tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan in a front line Stryker Brigade. That makes things very personal for her.
Here is essentially what Governor Palin laid out as her five requirements before going to war, as excerpted from her speech: [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.
Powerful words of an experienced, reasoned leader.
We also included video with our article, recorded from that event’s live feed. SarahPac has a better quality video for you to view, and remember what actual common sense leadership looks like:
As we think about all of this, and our out of control government considers action in Syria, one must never forget, those “rebels” President Obama and war hungry politicians and pundits are excited to “help” are al Qaeda affiliates, sworn enemies of United States, and the entire Free World.
As a nation, we have no reasons for being involved in Syria.
We have no interests at stake.
We’re definitely not fighting to win, or even make a significant difference.
We have no clear goals or objectives, whatsoever.
At a time we hear democrats bitching about “sequestration” and how the lack of money is hurting the nation. At a time we aren’t even feeding hot meals to our loyal and brave troops in Afghanistan. At a time we have more pressing issues that involve the citizens of our nation.
At this time, why exactly are Obama and members of both corrupt political parties so eager to side with al Qaeda and waste American blood and treasure in a war that has no good guys?
This, is insane.
It ruffled some feathers, but Government Palin may have said it best, let Allah sort it all out!