Posted on 08/05/2013 3:32:51 AM PDT by TexGrill
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich says he's reconsidering his neoconservative views regarding the benefits gained from U.S. military interventions as a way to promote democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Gingrich believes the methods he has long been a supporter of have backfired and require re-evaluation, the Washington Times reports.
“I am a neoconservative,” Gingrich told the Times. “But at some point, even if you are a neoconservative, you need to take a deep breath to ask if our strategies in the Middle East have succeeded.”
Gingrich, who backed the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, said he has become increasingly skeptical about the strategy of attempting to export democracy by force to countries where religion and culture clash with Western values.
“It may be that our capacity to export democracy is a lot more limited than we thought,” Gingrich said.
Gingrich said that while he has expressed his doubts concerning the ability of the U.S. for nation building before, he has only recently reached conclusions about their failures in light of the experiences of the past decade.
“My worry about all this is not new,” Gingrich said.
“But my willingness to reach a conclusion is new.”
Gingrich recommended Republicans put more weight on the anti-interventionist ideas offered by the libertarian-minded Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a tea party favorite and foreign policy skeptic.
“I think it would be healthy to go back and war-game what alternative strategies would have been better, and I like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul because they are talking about this,” Gingrich said.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Newt rethinks anything that he presumes will give him another shot at running for President, including wives, religion, and anything else.
ANY conservative with half a brain knew that our ongoing follies abroad, lacking any real achievable mission or conditions for victory, were in need of “rethinking” but we did it anyway.
Newt is adept at running to the front of a parade and pretending he is leading it. I doubt he’ll rethink that.
Karl Rove is scheming to sabotage the GOP, and he won’t change his mind on that matter. Gingrich has come to an awareness that neo-conservativism might not so brilliant after all. What person is worse?
As would I, but in this instance Newt is wearing politician plaid as he speaks. He says he's thinking about his position after twelve years, doesn't actually do a mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Remember he's a skilled orator and historian that chooses his words carefully. This is putting his wet finger up to test the direction of the political winds
Newt, get back to us when you've made your final considered position. Right now you sound like and unemployed couch potato telling his mom that he's thinking about getting a job.
Agree with you 100% on that one.
Since the definition of NEOconservative is one who was previously a liberal, or is still a liberal on domestic issues, isn’t Gingrich misusing the term?
Doesn’t he mean he’s reconsidering his aggressive interventionist international views?
How does Newt get to the point of such muddled thinking, or is he just playing to the MSM, for whom “neocon” is just a meaningless insult?
“But my willingness to reach a conclusion is new.”
Translation: The money I got from Romney ran out so I need a new shtick.
Newt can be your stereotypical politician, but it’s refreshing that a person with his numerous flawed traits can say, “wait a minute perhaps I’m wrong.” Can you expect Obama to do the same?
I know he’s still pretty tight with Terry Maple. That’s one reason he’s still turning up at zoos.
However I’m not totally opposed to Maple’s desire for more natural zoos as long as I don’t have to pay for them.
I'm very happy he's coming around to see it this way.
Enough of this intervention and attempts at nation building.
The Marxist's policies are complete failures.
Stand with Israel, period.
Agreed.
I don't understand why a conservative candidate for President doesn't rephrase our foreign policy just that simply.
You poke us (the U.S.) in the eye, we smash your face. You take a swing at us, we vaporize your capital city. You act injuriously or recklessly, we leave your country a smoldering ruin.
No nation-building, no hand-holding, no welcome wagon. We come not in mercy but with a sword.
I support that view too. Isn’t it a contradiction to tell a foreign country that you must enforce human rights and if not we will take away you’re right to live.
WTH does Obama have to do with this thread? Can we expect another non sequiter response from you?
good day to you.
It’s a moral comparison. Some people are criticizing Gingrich for changing his mind as some sort of character flaw. I say otherwise and point out that Obama is unwilling to change his mind, which is a bigger problem.
He can his mind all he wants but his inability to hold logical and consistent beliefs does not make him presidential material.
Yah but but Newt has had almost twelve years of observing the deteriorating events that prove his political neo-con posturing is just damn wrong.
Twelve years, that’s first grade through twelfth, even Jenteal has learned something in that time. Well except for reading cursive.
Mr. Gingrich forgets the initial reasons for the military action in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For those in Rio Linde, the reasons were for Iraq was Gulf War cease fire violations and Afghanistan was to get Osama Bin Laden. These were valid reasons for war. Initially, neither was for “nation building”.
If Congress had declared war, there would have been a specific goal to attain, after which additional Congressional approval would have been required for further military action, such as “nation building”. But modern politicians in Congress have spinelessly chosen to bypass the wisdom of the Founding Fathers so as to avoid responsibility. They have passed military action authorizations rather than declarations of war that essentially surrender the power to use the military to the POTUS.
Japan and Germany had established cultures, institutions, histories and governmental bodies, along with productive citizens.
They were hijacked by evil. They are examples of a defeated enemy becoming trusted allies because they could be such examples.
There is nothing like this in Iraq, Afghanistan. Those follies were never designed to succeed.
Exactly. It’s just as much a mistake to make a fetish of democracy as it is to proclaim the “divine right of kings”. Despite our fondness for representative government, it is obviously prone to abuses and requires a citizenry that is both educated and responsible. Absent that? The results are seldom what was expected.
I used to like Gingrich, I never liked Rove.
Which is worse? Damned if I know, but Gingrich is having trouble staying relevant, not sure if he wants to help America or just stay relevant for his own gain.
I have never understood the neo-conservative crap, I am neo-nothing, just a Conservative.
Newt was never in charge, during those 12 years.
I’m glad he’s changed his mind and made the determination that the US is not successful when it comes to exporting democracy in those Islamic nations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.