Posted on 06/01/2014 6:50:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
Conservatives generally agree on a few propositions. The federal government should avoid spending money unnecessarily. It shouldn't exceed its basic constitutional duties. It should encourage self-reliance rather than dependency. It should accept that some problems are beyond its ability to solve.
Barack Obama, they may be surprised to learn, agrees with much of this formula. He just applies it in a realm where conservatives often don't: foreign relations and national security. The Obama doctrine, as outlined in his policies and his speech at West Point Wednesday, is one of comparatively limited government.
Limited government, however, is not something many conservatives champion when it comes to matters military. They may question whether Washington should spend billions to bring prosperity and order to Detroit or New Orleans. But they had no objection to spending billions to bring prosperity and order to Baghdad and Kabul.
In the domestic realm, they believe the federal government's powers are few and mostly modest. Beyond the water's edge, it's a different story. When George W. Bush embarked on an extravagant project to "help the Iraqi people build a lasting democracy in the heart of the Middle East," Republicans granted him all the leeway he could want.
The Constitution says the government should "provide for the common defense." But Bush translated "defense" to mean going to war far from our shores against a country that had not attacked us.
His idea of self-restraint was saying, "The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats" (emphasis added). But he insisted that "the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather." Any potential danger, anywhere, anytime was grounds for an American attack.
A more sensible view is that the U.S. can indeed remain idle while alleged dangers gather, because most of them won't materialize. The immortal philosopher Calvin Coolidge said, "If you see 10 troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you." Many conservatives believe in hurrying out to meet all 10 just in case.
Obama noted that in recent decades, "some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint but from our willingness to rush into military adventures without thinking through the consequences." Substitute "government programs" for "military adventures," and he could be quoting Paul Ryan.
"I would betray my duty to you, and to the country we love, if I sent you into harm's way simply because I saw a problem somewhere in the world that needed to be fixed," he told the cadets. The attitude he cautions against is one that he and his fellow Democrats do not routinely apply to domestic matters. But it's a sound one.
Critics charge that Obama's foreign policy shows an unwillingness to lead, or weakness, or uncertain purposes. The same complaint, of course, could be made about conservative policies on poverty, health care, urban blight, access to housing and more. "Don't you care?" indignant liberals ask.
But sometimes ambitious government undertakings are too expensive to justify, sometimes they fail to solve problems, and sometimes they make things worse. In those instances, declining to act -- and explaining why -- is the most authentic form of leadership. That's just as true in the international realm as it is in the domestic one.
If Obama has yet to come up with a bumper-sticker slogan for his approach, the elements are fairly clear: Don't use military force until other means are exhausted -- and maybe not then. Don't use ground troops when you can use bombers or drones. Don't act alone when you can enlist allies. Don't take the lead role when someone else will do so.
Don't do for other countries what they could do for themselves. Don't confuse desirable outcomes with vital interests. Keep in mind that very few things are more costly and harmful to American interests than an unnecessary, unsuccessful war.
The president has followed these guidelines with reasonable consistency, which is one reason he could tell the cadets, "You are the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not be sent into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan" -- and not because they'll be deploying to fight somewhere else.
There will always be people who demand that the U.S. government do more and spend whatever it takes to solve an array of problems without any assurance of accomplishing its goals. Abroad, at least, Obama is not one of them.
Re the Carter, Powell, Wolfowitz, etc “doctrines,” each details the use of military power in an act of war. Declarations of war are to originate in the Congress. There is no such thing as an “intervention” in Constitutional law.
If Congress funds it, they approve it.
MacArthur also told Kennedy, don’t fight a land war in Asia. Wish George W Bush had listened before deciding to invade Iraq
Does anybody know why Chapman is appearing in Townhall? I thought the site was, ostensibly, a conservative one. Chapman is no conservative. Here is a bit from a piece by Colin Flaherty, concerning urban black youth violence, that appeared in American Thinker:
Steve Chapman is an editor at the Chicago Tribune who does not like it when people like Second City Cop complain his paper “embargoes” news about about racial violence. “Why do you care so much about the attackers’ race?” he wrote. “If you fear or dislike blacks, I suppose it would confirm your prejudice. But otherwise, it tells you nothing useful.”
A conservative does not turn a blind eye to facts, regardless of how unpleasant they may be.
That is an illegal definition of a declaration of war; it is government by hand-wave.
Because they don't want get caught up in the fingerpointing if something goes wrong. Its better to blame the prez.
Last year after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to arm the Syrian Rebels, Obama worked up a plan and sent to the Intelligence committees in the House and Senate. Both committees classified their vote so nobody knows who voted for it.
BTW, PBS Frontline did a 20 minute segment last Tues night than can be found now at their website that covers the process by which the Syrian rebel groups are vetted and trained to receive the arms.
The reporter asked the rebel about the weapons and he said they were good weapons but they were anti tank weapons and they really needed anti aircraft weapons.
The reporter then asked the rebel about the training and he said it was good training but at the rate it was being done, it would take 20 years
The rebel then said that America doesn't like Assad, but they don't like us either.
Which effectively makes the prez unaccountable. He already has a military budget he can bend to his will.
As to Syria, I think it's obvious that this is a "let them kill each other" war. Once the Iranians upgrade their weapons, blowback will be a bitch.
This is what is good about Congressionally declared war: the objectives are decided in advance, and if it was taking out the entire "axis of evil" so be it. Bush could then have gone on to Tehran after Baghdad and things would have been different. But noooo, he had to go to the UN to justify this family vendetta. It was idiotic. If it was "no nation building," then so be it. Etc. Things like that get settled in debate, but not in the heat of the pen and a telephone.
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.