Tag Archives: foreign policy

Leadership Flashback: The Palin Doctrine-Governor Sarah Palin’s Five Requirements for Military Action

sarah-palin-with-her-national-guard-troops

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!

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Re-Visiting the Palin Doctrine: Why Gov. Palin’s Comments on Syria Shouldn’t Surprise Anyone

by Whitney Pitcher

ff7

One of the lines that stood out in Governor Palin’s speech at the Faith and Freedom Coalition last week centered on her disapproval of aiding the Syrian rebels. “Both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line ‘Allahu akbar’ … I say let Allah sort it out.”, Palin said at the event. This line drew headlines,  predictable outrage from neoconservatives, and even surprise from some. However, it should not be surprising. Over the last few years, Governor Palin has articulated a foreign policy that rejects the false choice between neoconservatism and non-interventionism. She has spoken not only about when America should not intervene militarily, but also when they should not provide other forms of assistance to volatile regions around the globe.

In May 2011, Governor Palin gave a speech at a “Tribute to the Troops” event where she laid out a clear, 5 point “doctrine” of when American troops should be involved:

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.

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.

This kind of “doctrine” of limited military intervention has continued to guide her analysis of America’s foreign policy, as I highlighted in a post in August 2011:

Today, in her Facebook post, Governor Palin offered her thoughts on the recent activity in Libya, evaluating the situation realistically and cautiously and highlighting how the “Palin Doctrine” would be applied in practice. She cautioned against “triumphalism” and warned of co-opting of Libyan liberation and the future Libyan government by radical Muslim groups like the Islamic Libyan Fighting Group and al Qaeda, as is being done in Syria. Much in the same way, she had warned against the takeover of Egyptian government by the Muslim Brotherhood after the ousting of President Mubarak in February. She also warned against committing troops to being involved in missions in Libya that would not be in America’s best interest, much in the same way that she blasted President Obama in April when she questioned President Obama’s lack of clarity on Libya and his decision to place US troops under foreign command. Her statement today was a weaving of multiple points of her military doctrine into a clear vision of what America’s role should be in Libya following the defeat of Gaddafi.

Following the attack on the Benghazi consulate last fall, the Obama administration issued an apology for the you tube video red herring that served as a scapegoat for the attack. At that time, Governor Palin ripped the president for “waiving the white flag”, as it ran counter to the constitutional protection of free speech, and urged the president to withdraw troops if their mission was to be counter to protecting the freedoms of Americans:

Look, if our fearless leaders insist on waiving the white flag like this, they may need to bring our troops home from the Middle East. No more blood, no more U.S. treasure spent, not one drop, if those in control of our troops’ lives and tax dollars going into things like this are going to capitulate, wait, apologize for a first amendment right of ours, freedom of speech, that our troops are over there fighting for. Sean, our commander in chief is contradicting what we believe our troop’s mission is and that is to protect freedom.

Governor Palin’s foreign policy vision is not so narrow, however, as to only consider the use of American troops abroad, but also America’s financial resources. In May 2011, Governor Palin wrote:

Throwing borrowed money around is not sound economic policy. And throwing borrowed money around the developing world is not sound foreign policy. Foreign assistance should go to American allies that need it and appreciate it, and for humanitarian purposes when it can truly make a difference.

Foreign assistance of any kind should be reserved for allies and should be for humanitarian purposes only. Again, considering Governor Palin articulated this sentiment more than two years ago, it should surprise no one that Governor Palin believes that America should not intervene in Syria by providing arms to al Qaeda rebels.

Our political media across the spectrum try too often to dichotomize foreign policy, as if political leaders must either be Ron Paul or George W. Bush. This, of course, is a false choice. The “Palin doctrine” provides an America-centric alternative to neoconservatism and non-interventionism.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Governor Palin: Apparently President Obama Can’t See Egypt and Libya from His House

By Stacy Drake

Follow Stacy on Twitter!

It was widely reported Tuesday that large groups of Islamic extremists stormed both the U.S. Embassies in Egypt and Libya, killing one U.S. State Department officer. Governor Palin weighed in via Facebook:

Apparently President Obama can’t see Egypt and Libya from his house. On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks ever perpetrated on America, our embassy in Cairo and our consulate in Benghazi were attacked by violent Islamic mobs.

In Cairo, they scaled the walls of our embassy, destroyed our flag, and replaced it with a black Islamic banner. In Benghazi, the armed gunmen set fire to our consulate and killed an American staff member.

The Islamic radicals claim that these attacks are in protest to some film criticizing Islam. In response to this, the U.S. embassy in Cairo issued a statement that was so outrageous many of us thought it must be a satire. The embassy actually apologized to the violent mob attacking us, and it even went so far as to chastise those who use free speech to “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” (Funny, the current administration has no problem hurting the “religious feelings” of Catholics.)

But where is the president’s statement about this? These countries represent his much touted “Arab Spring.” How’s that Arab Spring working out for us now? Have we received an apology yet from our “friends” in the Muslim Brotherhood for the assault on our embassy?

It’s about time our president stood up for America and condemned these Islamic extremists. I realize there must be a lot on his mind these days – what with our economy’s abysmal jobless numbers and Moody’s new warning about yet another downgrade to our nation’s credit rating due to the current administration’s failure to come up with a credible deficit reduction plan. And, of course, he has a busy schedule – with all those rounds of golf, softball interviews with the “Pimp with the Limp,” and fundraising dinners with his corporate cronies.

But our nation’s security should be of utmost importance to our Commander-in-chief. America can’t afford any more “leading from behind” in such a dangerous world. We already know that President Obama likes to “speak softly” to our enemies. If he doesn’t have a “big stick” to carry, maybe it’s time for him to grow one.

~ Sarah Palin

Update: Flashback to February of 2011, Governor Palin warned about this. Also, in May of that same year, speaking with Greta Van Susteren during the “One Nation” bus tour.

3 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Sarah Palin’s Libyan Statement Shows Leadership and Common Sense

By Gary P Jackson

Sarah Palin has released a strong, common sense statement on the Libyan revolution. Measured and concise, she shows once again the sort of leadership America needs. Recently both Caroline Glick and Walter Russell Mead have spoken of the Jacksonian/Reaganesque sort of foreign policy that needs to make a return to the U.S. Both have mentioned Sarah Palin as the sort who can bring this about, with Mead going so far asking if Governor Palin is our foreign policy “messiah.”

Anyone who has kept up with Sarah’s many op-eds and Facebook notes knows she’s been very consistent about these sort of things. Cautious and reluctant to put American lives on the line in an effort to “spread democracy,” which amounts to nation building, costs America blood and treasure, and rarely ends well.

Here she cautions the Obama regime, and others, not to get too excited about all of the latest developments in Libya. Instead she warns of the real possibility of a new government with direct ties to al Qaeda. She also points out we do have ways of supporting those who want a western style of democracy, and should do what we can to make sure they are victorious in this struggle, through diplomatic means.

From Sarah:

We join the Libyan people in gratefulness as we hear of Col. Gaddafi’s defeat. The fall of a tyrant and sponsor of terrorism is a great day for freedom-loving people around the world. But the path to democracy in Libya is not complete, and we must make wise choices to ensure that our national interests are protected.

First, the White House needs to avoid triumphalism. Gaddafi may be gone, but the fighting may not be complete. As we’ve seen in Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, we must not celebrate too quickly. There are now mounting concerns that we will see tribal and sectarian fighting in Libya like we saw in Iraq. Let’s hope that is not the case, but it must be prepared for.

Second, we must be very concerned about the future government that will emerge to take Gaddafi’s place. History teaches that those with the guns usually prevail when a coalition overthrows a tyrant. We must remember that military power ultimately resides with the rebel commanders. This should be a source of some concern. The armed opposition to Gaddafi is an outgrowth of a group called Islamic Libya Fighting Group, and some rebel commanders admit that they have Al Qaeda links. The rebel fighters are from different tribes, and they have a variety of political views. Some are Islamists, some appear to favor some sort of western democracy. We should work through diplomatic means to help those who want democracy to come out on top.

That said, we should not commit U.S. troops or military assets to serve as peacekeepers or perform humanitarian missions or nation-building in Libya. Our military is already over-committed and strained, and a vaguely designed mission can be the first step toward a quagmire. The internal situation does not seem stable enough for U.S. forces to operate in a purely humanitarian manner without the possibility of coming under attack. Troop deployment to Libya would mean placing America’s finest in a potentially hostile zone that is not in our vital national security interest.

Finally, we must make sure that terrorist groups don’t try to co-opt the revolution, as Al Qaeda is trying to do in Syria. We should continue to use our intelligence assets to monitor the situation in Libya to ensure that potentially dangerous weapons are secured, and that terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda don’t gain a foothold in Libya.

People of Libya, be vigilant. May this opportunity be used to build a free and peaceful country.

~ Sarah Palin

4 Comments

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

Walter Russell Mead: Sarah Palin: America’s Foreign Policy Messiah?

Governor Sarah Palin observes flight operations aboard the USS Stennis

By Gary P Jackson

While doing research for the article: Carolyn Glick: U.S. Needs Sarah Palin’s Foreign Policy, Not Rick Perry’s, I came across this piece from Walter Russell Mead, who Caroline Glick quotes in her article. Mead is a proponent of Jacksonian/Reaganesque foreign policy. The title of his article, written back in February, may be a bit much, but his thinking is spot on.

The rise of the Tea Party movement has been the most controversial and dramatic development in U.S. politics in many years. Supporters have hailed it as a return to core American values; opponents have seen it as a racist, reactionary and ultimately futile protest against the emerging reality of a multicultural, multiracial United States and a new era of government activism.

Nonetheless, the Tea Party movement has clearly struck a nerve in American politics, and students of American foreign policy need to think through the consequences of this populist and nationalist political insurgency.

As is so often the case in the United States, to understand the present and future of American politics, one must begin by coming to grips with the past.

The Tea Party movement taps deep roots in U.S. history. It is best understood as a contemporary revolt of Jacksonian common sense — the idea that moral, scientific, political and religious truths can be ascertained by the average person — against elites perceived as both misguided and corrupt.

And although the movement itself may splinter and even disappear, the populist energy that powers it will not go away any time soon. Jacksonianism is always an important force in American politics; at times of social and economic stress and change, like the present, its importance tends to grow.

In foreign policy, Jacksonians embrace a set of strongly nationalist ideas. They combine a firm belief in American exceptionalism with deep skepticism about the nation’s ability to create a liberal world order. The Obama administration is trying to steer U.S. foreign policy away from Jacksonian approaches just as a confluence of foreign and domestic developments are creating a Jacksonian moment.

Forecasting how this newly energized populist movement will influence foreign policy is difficult. Public opinion is responsive to events; a terrorist attack inside U.S. borders or a crisis in East Asia or the Middle East, for example, could transform the politics of U.S. foreign policy overnight.

Nevertheless, some trends seem clear.

The first is that the contest in the Tea Party between what might be called its Palinite and its Paulite wings will likely end in a victory for the Palinites. The Palinite wing of the Tea Party (after Sarah Palin) wants a vigorous, proactive approach to the problem of terrorism in the Middle East, one that rests on a close alliance between the United States and Israel. The Paulite wing (Rand Paul) would rather distance the United States from Israel as part of a general reduction of the United States’ profile in a part of the world from which little good can be expected.

The Paulites are likely to lose this contest because the commonsense reasoning of the American people now generally takes as axiomatic that security at home cannot be protected without substantial engagement overseas.

Terrorist attacks and events such as the Iranian effort to build nuclear weapons are likely to keep that sense of international danger alive (recent polls show that up to 64 percent of the U.S. public favors military strikes to end the Iranian nuclear program). Widespread public concern about perceived threats from a rising China will also strengthen public support for a strong military force and global American engagement.

Paulites and Palinites are united in their dislike for liberal internationalism — the attempt to conduct international relations through multilateral institutions under an ever-tightening web of international laws and treaties.

There is much in the Tea Party movement to give pause, but effective foreign policy must always begin with a realistic assessment of the facts on the ground.

Today’s Jacksonians are unlikely to disappear. Americans should rejoice that in many ways the Tea Party movement, warts and all, is a significantly more capable and reliable partner for the United States’ world-order-building tasks than were the isolationists of 60 years ago. Compared to the Jacksonians during the Truman administration, today’s are less racist, less antifeminist, less homophobic, and more open to an appreciation of other cultures and worldviews.

Furthermore, today’s southern Republican populists are far more sympathetic to core liberal capitalist concepts than were the populist supporters of William Jennings Bryan a century ago.

Foreign policy mandarins often wish the public would leave them alone so that they can get on with the serious business of statecraft. That is not going to happen in the United States. If the Tea Party movement fades away, other voices of populist protest will take its place. American policymakers and their counterparts overseas simply cannot do their jobs well without a deep understanding of what is one of the principal forces in American political life.

A robust foreign policy that concentrates on making sure our enemies are defeated is the best use of our blood and treasure. Blood and treasure that should never be wasted trying to be the world’s policeman. Nation building is an exercise in futility. Yes, we can aid and help guide the willing, but it should never be our foreign policy goal.

Again, I’m not comfortable calling Governor Palin some sort “messiah” but I am confident she is the one person that, as President, would have the right strategy. Her doctrine of foreign policy is well defined and based on common sense.

One thing we can never say enough, is Sarah Palin’s energy policy will have an incredible impact on our foreign policy. Energy is Sarah’s strong suit. She was relentless in Alaska, not only with reform and safety, but with getting maximum production from the field.

A United States that is energy independent will change the world in many ways. It will change how America looks at problems around the world. Many of the conflicts we are involved in are due to the fact our oil supply is in peril. Instability in the Middle East, as well as an emerging China and Russia have made things complicated and volatile.

Remove energy dependence from the equation and all of a sudden things look a little different.

Most of America disagrees with what Mead calls the “Paulite” wing of the Tea Party, most notably Ron Paul’s extreme views. [like it’s OK for Iran to have nukes] I recently directed a reader, who is a Paul fan, to an article I wrote last December reporting that Iran was placing nuclear capable missiles in Venezuela. Missiles that could hit targets in the United States. So no, Iran having nukes is not OK in any way, shape, or form.

That said, there is a strong case to be made for people who support Ron Paul, because of foreign policy, to take a hard look at Sarah Palin. Her energy policy alone will mean that America will not only be stronger, but better able to aggressively prosecute the war on terror, without having to take interruptions in oil supply into consideration.

Reagan’s foreign policy philosophy was “Peace through strength.” A stronger America always means a safer world. Here are two Reagan quotes that say it all:

Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.

History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.

The Japanese attacked the United States on December 7, 1941 because they thought we were weak, based on our isolationist, “Paulite,” sort of foreign policy. They didn’t think the price of their aggression would be very high at all.

A strong America makes the rest of the world think twice before doing something that will destabilize the world. On the other hand, look at what’s going on now, with Obama running things. Rogue nations and thug dictators world wide are emboldened now that America is perceived as weak.

Sarah Palin is cut from the same cloth as Ronald Reagan, and shares his “Peace through strength” ideals. Nothing could make America stronger or more secure than an aggressive energy policy with a goal of being 100% energy independent at it’s core. This would help ensure not only our national security, but our financial security as well.

Governor Palin is not some sort of “messiah” [with all due respect to Mead] but she is America’s best chance at having a leader who gets it. Someone who will bring common sense with her in all of her dealings.

13 Comments

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

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

Muslim Republicans: Sarah Palin Seems To Be One Of The Only Republicans To Have Gotten It Right On Egypt

The Egypt situation sounds complicated and troubling, but it isn’t. There is no doubt that this will change the Middle East forever. History is unfolding before our very own eyes. We need to realize this and seize the moment and momentum.

The only conservatives making any sense on Egypt are Sarah Palin and Paul Wolfowitz. No one else sounds even remotely credible.

By Gary P Jackson

This is an interesting bit of opinion I ran across from the Muslim world. It seems those who actually want a stable Egypt, and a broader stability in the Middle East, are looking to Sarah Palin as the one who “gets it.” In March we reported polling that showed Americans thought Sarah Palin was the strongest of all presidential contenders when it comes to national security.

She has been outspoken against the President’s foreign policy, and his tendencies to embrace our enemies and snub our fiends. She has said Obama was “on the wrong side of history” in his dealings. Sarah recently hammered Obama for borrowing money only to give it to Egypt, a nation in turmoil.

Here’s more of what the Muslim Republicans have to say about Sarah Palin:

We will end with Sarah Palin. Surprisingly, one of the few conservatives that is displaying courage, independent thought (sometimes too independent), and visionary leadership.

Sarah Palin seems to be one of the only Republicans to have gotten it right. Palin said on Fox News:

It is important that we root for people who are truly seeking democracy and freedoms.”

Over 30 years of standing by Mubarak’s side and he essentially standing with America on a lot of our interests it makes sense that we have a reciprocal relationship but no it is not moral or ethical. We are watching Mubarak and realizing the billions of dollars that have been spent, he’s become rich, a lot of the dictatorship has personally benefited. So where do those funds end up? We need to pull back on those countries where the money isn’t doing any good.

Read More here.

Sarah has said more on Egypt, Libya, and the foreign policy as a whole here, here, here, and here.

1 Comment

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Jennifer Rubin’s Wrong Turn on Governor Palin’s Foreign Policy

Last November, the Washington Post hired Jennifer Rubin to replace journolister, Dave Weigel, as their “conservative” blogger. Yes, those quotation marks are needed. Many, including Newsbusters, saw this hire as a step in the right direction for the Washington Post, as Rubin replaced the unscrupulous Weigel and had a great tenure writing for the neoconservative outlet Commentary. In fact, prior to her departure from Commentary, Rubin wrote at least four lengthy pieces supporting and defending Governor Palin. Rubin wrote articles supporting Governor Palin’s non-elitism, highlighting her as a strong Tea Party voice, offering high praise for Governor Palin’s political instincts, and defending Governor Palin against those who criticized her Restoring Honor rally speech.

by Whitney Pitcher

What a difference a new employment contract makes! Rubin was announced as a new conservative commentator for the Washington Post on November 23, 2010 writing a blog called “Right Turn” and eight days later, wrote her first anti Palin screed arguing that Governor Palin was not a front runner for the GOP presidential nomination and poo pooing Governor Palin’s use of the term “death panel”–a phrase that Rubin was supportive of in her articles at Commentary. Rubin’s criticisms have become commonplace ever since as Ian, Stacy, and Doug at Conservatives4Palin have addressed in recent months.

Fast forward to today where Governor Palin’s new foreign policy hire and the news of a clear cut “Palin doctrine”, if you will, unveiled last night, and neoconservatives throughout the Beltway, like Rubin, have their proverbial panties in a wad, and for no good reason. In her latest piece today, Rubin charges that Governor Palin’s recent comments about Libya and her speech last night have Governor Palin “sounding like Obama’s liberal critics”. Then she states that this supposed shift in policy and worldview is something that ” careful observers of Palin” have picked up on.

First, Rubin charges that Governor Palin’s latest Facebook post on President Obama’s mishandling of Libya was “incoherent”and claimed that she couldn’t ascertain whether Governor Palin supported action in Libya or not. If Rubin were truly a “careful observer” of Governor Palin, as she claims, she would have remembered that Governor Palin was the first high profile political voice to call for a no fly zone in Libya in February, three weeks before President Obama went along with a UN decision to institute a no fly zone. In the supposedly incoherent post that Rubin references, Governor Palin made it very clear she supported a no fly zone, but questioned the real incoherency regarding Libya–President Obama’s actions. Governor Palin writes (emphasis mine):

Please make up your mind, Mr. President. You can’t vacillate when spending America’s human and fiscal resources in yet another foreign country without good reason. You said that Libyan leader Gaddafi has got to go. Many of us heard that as your call to action and agreed, “Okay, you’re right. He’s an evil dictator who kills his own innocent people, so enforce a no-fly zone so he can’t continue an aerial slaughter.” But then you said our mission in Libya isn’t to oust Gaddafi after all. (Or vice versa on the order or your statements. Between you and your advisers the public has been given so many conflicting statements on why we’re intervening in Libya that I apologize if I can’t keep up with the timing and rationale of your murky foreign policy positions.)

Governor Palin was quite clear that she believes that Gaddafi needs to go, which she has consistently said in interviews. What is truly incoherent is President Obama’s mission in Libya, as Governor Palin said.

Rubin then goes on to refer to Governor Palin’s speech yesterday in support of the troops in Colorado. In doing so, she relies heavily on the account of another supposed “careful observer” of Governor Palin, Politico’s Andy Barr. Politico is indeed an incessant observer of Governor Palin, but to characterize them as careful is far from the truth–biased is more like it. Barr spent so much of his piece focusing on the venue of the speech that he grossly misquoted Governor Palin’s statements claiming Governor Palin said, “we can’t undo every justice in the world” when she clearly referred to the injustice in the world.

Rubin goes on to claim that Governor Palin had an about face in her foreign policy stance, yet doesn’t articulate what those change are, other than parroting Bill Kristol in his wrong headed opposition to Governor Palin. Kristol’s rant, which Rubin heavily quotes, touts the success of the surge in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere and then infers that Governor Palin thinks that America, in her strength and leadership, needs to “back off”. This, of course, is categorically false, which Rubin would be aware of if she viewed, listened to, or read an account of the speech for herself. Governor Palin both praised the efforts in Afghanistan that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden, and America’s strength in her speech (emphasis mine):

God bless all the brave men and women in our military and our intelligence services who carried out the successful mission to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice and all those who had laid the groundwork over the years to make that victory possible. The historic action that was announced last night was the result of the diligence, hard work, and character of countless American warriors who know that those who spread evil, those with murderous intentions must be contained. Those who would kill in the name of religion must be stopped.

[…]

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.

There is nothing in those statements or anywhere in Governor Palin’ s speech where she indicates that she has walked back her support for the surge in Afghanistan and Iraq, or believes in any kind of wet noodle spined foreign policy or “Obama lite” foreign policy as Kristol and Rubin laughably claim.

Rubin’ s last “careful” observation is that Governor Palin is a now Paulian isolationist. Another wrong assertion that Rubin would not have claimed had she actually listened to Governor Palin’s speech herself. Governor Palin very clearly both denounced isolationism and called America to be a global leader in her speech (emphasis mine):

I believe that America must never retreat into isolation. The world would be less safe and less free without our leadership. And we must never forget that America has a responsibility to lead. “To whom much is given, much is expected.” We cannot be the world’s policeman granted, or the world’s ATM. But we can lead by example. By our words and, when necessary, by our actions, we must and we will remain the world’s abiding beacon of freedom.

Jennifer Rubin has proven to be an observer of Governor Palin, but a careful one she is not. As mentioned earlier, following Governor Palin’s Restoring Honor Rally speech, Rubin wrote a piece defending Governor Palin against supposed “feminists” and praising her foreign policy stances in response to a opinion piece in the New York Times. She closed that piece with this statement:

But I give the Times gals credit — they know they are losing the battle to discredit Palin. Now they need to figure out what to do about it. They might start with examining whether their agenda has as much sell as hers.

I give the Post girl credit, in her short time at the Washington Post, Rubin may not yet realize that her about face in intellectual honesty has her in a losing battle to discredit Governor Palin. She needs to figure out what to do about it. She might start with examining whether her now Palin bashing agenda has as much sell as Governor Palin’s consistent foreign policy.

Jerry Wilson has a good piece on Rubin’s article here (H/T JimR)

Updated: On a related note, HotAir has a great piece outlining Governor Palin’s foreign policy doctrine and describing the differences between that policy, the current actions in Libya, and what many have described as neoconservative actions in the past few decades.

Leave a comment

Filed under sarah palin

Sarah Palin Rips Obama On Libya, Foreign Policy As A Whole

I know, I know, granted you will be even busier very soon. After all, golf season kicks into high gear shortly. NBA and NHL brackets await. Summer vacations and that all-consuming campaign whistle stop tour will no doubt slam you. But I would ask, while the rest of us are also busy working, saving, planning ahead, fighting to protect our Constitution, and trying to keep up with where and why you’re spending our Department of Defense funds – I’d ask that you find time to tell Americans the truth about the state of our union and what you are doing to find solutions to our challenges. Please start with explaining Libya.

~ Sarah Palin

By Gary P Jackson

Sarah Palin released what can only be described as a masterful beat-down of Barack Obama today. She pulls no punches as she talks about our leaderless nation. She tears into Obama for wasting blood and treasure in Libya, with no clear mission for our troops.

America Deserves Libya Explanation

Please make up your mind, Mr. President. You can’t vacillate when spending America’s human and fiscal resources in yet another foreign country without good reason. You said that Libyan leader Gaddafi has got to go. Many of us heard that as your call to action and agreed, “Okay, you’re right. He’s an evil dictator who kills his own innocent people, so enforce a no-fly zone so he can’t continue an aerial slaughter.” But then you said our mission in Libya isn’t to oust Gaddafi after all. (Or vice versa on the order or your statements. Between you and your advisers the public has been given so many conflicting statements on why we’re intervening in Libya that I apologize if I can’t keep up with the timing and rationale of your murky foreign policy positions.)

At this point, to avoid further mission creep and involvement in a third war – one we certainly can’t afford – you need to step up and justify our Libyan involvement, or Americans are going to demand you pull out. Simply put, what are we doing there? You’ve put us in a strategic no man’s land. If Gaddafi’s got to go, then tell NATO our continued participation hinges on this: We strike hard and Gaddafi will be gone. If, as you and your spokesmen suggest, we’re not to tell Libya what to do when it comes to that country’s leadership, and if you can’t explain to Americans why we’re willing to protect Libyan resources and civilians but not Syria’s, Yemen’s, Bahrain’s, Egypt’s, Israel’s, etc., then there is no justification for U.S. human and fiscal resources to be spent.

I would also ask you to better explain your thinking on Libya. We can’t afford any actions that don’t take care of crucial U.S. needs and meet our own interests at this point. You are the Commander in Chief, so please explain what you believe is our “interest” there and not elsewhere.

Mr. President, your hesitation and vacillation in the Middle East breed uncertainty. It’s symptomatic of the puzzling way you govern. See, uncertainty is one of the factors over which you have control, and I would think you’d want to eliminate that additional element that helps breed problems like higher oil prices. Higher oil means exorbitant gas prices weighing down our economy. Consistency and strength – and greater domestic energy production – will help fix higher gas prices and help heal the economy. But only with leadership. These sorts of problems don’t fix themselves.

It’s unbelievable to me that you spent last week in campaign mode, gallivanting around the country to start raising the billion dollars for your reelection bid that is still 19 months away “while Rome burns.” Our economy is in the tank; jobs are as scarce as ever; you’re asking Congress to let you incur even more unsustainable, immoral, freedom-stealing government debt; and many of our brave men and women in uniform are shaking their heads in disbelief over your befuddled military directions. Yet instead of working with Congress and a wise multitude of advisers to fix some problems, you choose all this campaigning, already? As was recently asked: When do you ever just “roll up your sleeves, unplug the teleprompter” and do the job of governing and administrating for which voters hired you?

I know, I know, granted you will be even busier very soon. After all, golf season kicks into high gear shortly. NBA and NHL brackets await. Summer vacations and that all-consuming campaign whistle stop tour will no doubt slam you. But I would ask, while the rest of us are also busy working, saving, planning ahead, fighting to protect our Constitution, and trying to keep up with where and why you’re spending our Department of Defense funds – I’d ask that you find time to tell Americans the truth about the state of our union and what you are doing to find solutions to our challenges. Please start with explaining Libya.

~ Sarah Palin

This is what a leader sounds like. While reality show “stars” run around looking for the President’s birth certificate, former Massachusetts Governors are explaining away their latest gaffe, and former Speakers of the House are trying to explain why they took hundreds of thousands of dollars from ethanol lobby [again] Sarah Palin is focused on what matters.

This is why Sarah has stated it is way too early to start politicin’ for the 2012 presidential race. We have serious issues right now that must be taken care of. President Obama has us on a road to ruin. America is in bad shape. Our debt to GDP ratio is basically 1:1, a recipe for disaster. Gas prices are through the roof, never mind the United States has the largest fossil fuel reserve on earth. Obama has us in three wars, with absolutely no direction. And that’s just a few of the big things that are going wrong.

It’s bad enough that our nation’s Commander-in-Chief is more interested in playing golf, enjoying lavish vacations, and of course, running for re-election, why is it all of the Republican presidential wannabees are just as bad? Seriously, the GOP hopefuls are so busy playing politics they have no time for the fight in front of them.

Maybe I’m expecting too much. It’s not like any of these Republican show ponies have been out there fighting Obama before!

We need leaders, not candidates. America is in big trouble, and just this once you’d think the usual suspects would put their own political futures on hold, and join in the fight to save her.

As you can tell, I am sick of politics as usual, and sick of the insanity surrounding it. America deserves a no nonsense leader who has her eye on the ball, and not worried about the politics of it all. America deserves someone who actually understands how to lead.

11 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Sarah Palin: Barack Obama’s Post American Theory of Intervention

I think it was a profoundly disappointing speech because it proved that the Obama doctrine is still full of chaos and questions…Why in the world would our military might be used according to the UN and Arab League’s desires and NATO’s leadership in this skirmish or this war or whatever it is that Obama calls it?

~ Sarah Palin

By Gary P Jackson

On Monday night Sarah Palin went On The Record with Greta Van Susteren to talk about Barack Obama’s incoherent speech on Libya. Sarah takes the speech apart piece by piece.

2 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin