Republicans must get real on foreign policy

The Week ^ | Dec 12 2012 | Daniel Lareson

[WilliamIII]

Republicans are slowly recovering from their crushing defeat in the presidential election, and are now weighing possible changes that the party clearly needs to make to regain the public's trust after losing their third national election in the last six years. (2010 was the lone bright spot.) But despite the broad soul-searching, most of the GOP's high-profile national leaders have so far failed to address the party's continued weakness on foreign policy and national security, which remains a major liability. The exceptions to this have been Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who have both hinted at a reformed Republican foreign policy that is less aggressive and less reliant on military action.

[Fee]

Ike told the British and French to pound sand because great powers do not let small allies drag them into wars without being consulted. The British, French and Israel planned a secret attack to retake the Suez Canal. The US was not told, but after the attack, and then these “allies” thought they can force the US to get involve. Ike decision is right, he did not want the allies in Europe who still think they are in charge of the world to use the US as the muscle back up in wars they want. That is how WW1 got started. I agree with you on the atomic for peace insanity. Great powers never share their secrets of power.

[WilliamIII]

I am interested in controlling nuclear WMD’s.

Me too. Iraq didn’t have em, it turned out, so the war was a massive waste - worse than a waste because it elevated the Shiites to power in Iraq.

[WilliamIII]

What Larison believes in is appeasement.

So “appeasement” means somebody who supports deterrence and containment? Reagan was an appeaser in your definition.

[rmlew]

Wrong. Britian, France and Israel did not need US aid. Ike responded to this perceived colonialism by imposing oil sanctions and causing a run on the Pound.
Ike despised the British Empire and was happy to help the communist destroy it. It is sad that ersatz conservatives today like Ike for the very behavior conservatives condemned him for in the 1950s.

[rmlew]

Reagan believed in rollback, not merely containment. In 1980, the Soviets had nukes, so preventing them from getting them was hardly an option. But let us note that The American Dhimmi oppose all actual efforts at ballistic missile defense, while pretending to support in theory. That is unless publishing a leftist surrenderist, which they often do, because their evening star is dhimmitude, not conservatism.

[rmlew]

Land, peace bread.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Deal. :D

[WilliamIII]

Reagan believed in rollback, not merely containment.

Yes, but Reagan knew rollback could happen - he made it happen - without getting the US into wars. Unlike Bush Jr., who I voted for twice, but who turned out to be a failed president who ushered in the rule of Obama, in large part because of Bush’s disastrous decision to invade Iraq. There are statues to Reagan in the countries he liberated without getting the US into any wars. Are there any statues to Bush in Iraq? Have the Shiites who now run that country named any streets after Bush?

[rmlew]

But wars were necessary. We supported Afghan Mujehadeen in a proxy war. We liberated Grenad in an absolute case of rollback. And the Liberation of Kuwait under George HW Bush crippled the reputation of Soviet equipment and doctrine.