Tag Archives: Palin Doctrine

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!

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

Sarah Palin Hires New Foreign Policy Adviser: More In Line Line With Her Doctrine

Now some of these principles may sound familiar and a few of them were first expressed back in 1984 in Pres Reagan’s cabinet. They were designed to help us sharply define the when and how we should use force. And they served us well in the Reagan years. Times are much different now but I believe that by updating these time tested principles to address the unique and changing circumstances and threats that we face today they’ll serve us well now and into the future. Remember Reagan liked to keep it simple yet profound. Remember what he said to the enemy. “We win you lose. ”

And some may argue that well today in a world where we are dealing with terrorists organizations rather than of cold war adversaries these principles are outdated. On the contrary, these principles are timeless.

They will allow us to effectively and forcefully defend our vital national interests and those of our key allies in the age of terrorism. We must vigorously defend ourselves but at the same time we must not wear down our armed forces with never ending and ever increasing commitments.

I believe that America though 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 can not 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, we will remain the world’s abiding beacon of freedom.

~ Sarah Palin May 2, 2011

By Gary P Jackson.

Anyone who has followed Sarah Palin for any length of time knows she is very much a Reagan Conservative, and that includes her outlook on foreign policy. Reagan had a solid, but simple plan for dealing with America’s enemies. “We win, they lose!

Now obviously the nuts and bolts of this sort of doctrine are more complex, but what Reagan meant, as does Sarah, is very simple: If America is going to engage in war, we are going in with the focus and determination to win that war. We are not going in as the world’s policeman.

Another way of saying this is “Peace through strength.

Reagan won the Cold War, without getting into a shooting war, by convincing the Soviet Union the United States, if engaged, would do whatever it took to win that war. Period. The Soviets were bankrupting themselves trying to keep up with Reagan’s efforts to rebuild and strengthen the U.S. military, that was gutted by Jimmy Carter. The Soviets knew Reagan meant business, and knew there was a line they could never cross. We’ve not had such a straightforward, strong, and concise foreign policy doctrine since those days.

Sarah has long talked in the same manner as Reagan. Though the corrupt media is doing it’s damnedest to say otherwise today, Sarah has not changed her foreign policy stance. What she has done, with her speech in Colorado Monday night, as she gave tribute to our troops, is lay out everything she has been saying since her days as a vice presidential candidate, into one sophisticated doctrine. The five requirements needed before she would engage in military action. It’s reasonable, forward looking, and concise. Simple and elegant. In case you missed her speech, we have the transcript along with video here.

With that said, Sarah has hired a new foreign policy adviser. Someone more in line with her doctrine.

Her former team Randy Scheunemann and Michael Goldfarb of Orion Strategies have been replaced by Peter Schweizer, a writer and fellow at the Hoover Institution who blogs regularly at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Peace. Schweizer has written two definitive books on the way Reagan handled the Cold War: Victory and Reagan’s War

J.E. Dyer offers her thoughts:

Many volumes could be written on the distinctions between the prevailing ideas on the use of force overseas, but this passage of Palin’s speech, combined with her taking on Peter Schweizer as an adviser, argues for a more Reaganesque than progressive-activist view.

[ …. ]

To call something “neocon” now is not to put it in the context of any consistent thread in policy. Bush 41, for example, used force for regime-change in Panama in 1989, but didn’t use it to regime-change Saddam in 1991. He restricted himself to evicting Saddam’s forces from Kuwait. He also dispatched military force to supervise the delivery of aid to Somalis, with no intention of resolving the chaotic political situation there – this last enterprise an open-ended use of force on the progressive-activist model.

Reagan used force to regime-change Grenada, ironically in the middle of dealing with the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which was a consequence of improperly scoping the purpose and requirements of force in a particular situation. Again, the latter (the Marine barracks debacle) is more characteristic of the progressive-activist model – which is what is currently developing in Libya.

Bush 43 used overwhelming force for regime-change in Iraq, and induced regime-change in Afghanistan with less than overwhelming force, but both were cases of politically justifying absolute regime-change and pursuing it without temporizing. Unifying Afghanistan under new rule has proven to be the insoluble problem in the aftermath, although the regime-change of Iraq has been much more heavily criticized throughout.

Which of these episodes were the result of “neocon” policies? There are plenty of people today who call the Libya intervention “neocon,” because it is expeditionary and related only indirectly to US security. Samantha Power and Susan Rice wouldn’t thank those pundits for calling their humanitarian intervention a “neocon” operation.

Schweizer is a fan of Reagan’s approach, which had no compunction about trying to undermine oppressive governments, but did so by supporting freedom movements where they were indigenous, and arming the insurgents under Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. The commitment of US force was a matter of coming to blows very rarely under Reagan: besides invading Grenada, Reagan conducted a reprisal against Libya in 1986 after the Berlin nightclub bombing, and another one against Iran in 1988 for mining the Persian Gulf and inflicting mine damage on USS Samuel B Roberts (FFG-58). The US armed forces had a high and very active profile during the Reagan years, but the actual use of force was considered necessary very seldom.

[ …. ]

As is typical of her, Palin is talking in the terms on which we need to be carrying on the public discussion of national security, our national interests, and interventions overseas. There has been a very long and extensive national dialogue on these topics over the last 100 years; we have never settled most questions as if there were a single answer. Palin – alone among potential GOP candidates – is harking back to the philosophical discussions launched by presidents and candidates like Reagan, Goldwater, Adlai Stevenson (agree with him or not, he launched a substantive debate that colored Democratic positions for the next 40 years), Wilson, and Theodore Roosevelt.

I believe people intuit the need for this debate, as overseas interventions seem to be stalemated in Afghanistan and Libya, and the world begins to behave as if there is no US power. Palin apparently recognizes the need to talk about fundamentals – and love her or hate her, I don’t see anyone else out there doing it.

In her last sentence, Dyer says it all. While the Ruling Class is telling us how “dumb” Sarah Palin is, and how “brilliant” the flavor of the week candidate they are shilling for is, Sarah Palin, who we are told is “totally unserious” and should “leave the room” or “go study up” is not only leading the national debate, she’s doing it alone, at least among the so-called “presidential hopefuls.” You know, the “thought leaders” among us. The ones who are doing nothing right now but playing politics. As Sarah herself has said: “If it wasn’t for double-standards, they would have no standards at all!

Sarah has been leading the national debate on fiscal policy, social policy, energy policy, and foreign policy for quite some time now. Sarah Palin has proven through he 20 years in public service that she is a non-nonsense leader who understands how things work, and how to get things done.

At this point, she is taking things to the next level, She’s refining her policies, not changing them. She’s laying out her policies for the American people understand and reflect on. Some of these other candidates, including leftovers from the 2008 presidential contest, have yet to even attempt to do this.

I agree with Sarah, that it’s way too early to be running for president, but my goodness, if you’ve been out there for five or six years, and don’t have a coherent and concise set of policies, a solid policy of governance, just how serious are we supposed to take you?

Something else the Palin Doctrine does, with limited use of military intervention, it also addresses our fiscal problems. We are broke and we can ill afford to borrow money for willy-nilly military adventurism with no clearly defined goals. That’s essential when we have a $14 trillion debt.

No one knows if Sarah will run for President, even though all of the signs are there that she will. I do know this, having followed her since before she was John McCain’s choice of running mate, Sarah Palin is the leader this nation needs if we are ever to get back on the right track again.

2 Comments

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