Archive for the ‘American Foreign Policy’ Category

Saturday, January 29th, 2011 at 3:25pm

Stability Should Be Washington’s Primary Objective in Egypt

The situation in Egypt is emblematic of a recurring foreign policy paradox faced by American policymakers:  sometimes it is more prudent to support pro-Western autocratic regimes than democratically elected governments.  You will recall that the Nazi Party gained power democratically throughout the 1920s and early 1930s, incrementally increasing their numbers in Reichstag.  A democratic election which elevates the Muslim Brotherhood to power would certainly not be in the interests of the United States nor the broader Middle East.  While Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is imperfect, the transition to a more republican form of government shouldn’t be done in haste, though the situation on the ground is certainly pushing events in that direction.

If you’re a realist, then you want stability in Egypt, even if it means the continued…

Saturday, January 29th, 2011 at 2:18pm

Rand Paul is Right; Washington Should Reduce All Foreign Aid

Freshman Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is being criticized by Democrats and Republicans because of his proposal to cut U.S. foreign aid, including aid to Israel, in order to close the deficit.  The reality is that Washington should reduce its foreign aid commitments across the board, not just Israel.  In FY 2008, the U.S. provided some type of foreign aid to 154 countries.  It is inconsistent for conservatives to advocate for limited government at home while aruging for big government and reckless spending abroad.  Foreign aid is an important lever of foreign policy but only when that aid is used judiciously and clearly advances the national interest.  Right now, Washington gives out taxpayer dollars whimsically and without any consideration of…

Saturday, January 29th, 2011 at 9:58am

A Conservative Foreign Policy for America

Right now the biggest threat to the United States is its $14 trillion national debt.  Throughout history great powers have bankrupted themselves by trying to do too much both at home and abroad, and unfortunately Washington is charging hard down that same fateful path.  What is even more troubling is that when it comes to foreign policy, both major parties tend to advocate big government internationalism.  The irony here is that many self-proclaimed conservatives advocate big government internationalism while championing limited government at home.

Yesterday, I outlined a new approach for American foreign policy in The Washington Examiner.  It advocates redefining our national interest and reducing our military commitments abroad.  Here’s an excerpt:

When it comes to foreign policy,…

Friday, October 22nd, 2010 at 6:05pm

The Making of a National Security Advisor

President Obama announced earlier this month that his current deputy national security advisor, Tom Donilon, would replace the retiring Marine Corps General Jim Jones.  Donilon was a lobbyist for Fannie Mae, and a paid consultant for Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Apollo Investments.  Donilon is kind of a strange pick, then, considering his background as a lobbyist and his association with Fannie Mae.  It’s strange because this administration made such a big deal about excluding lobbyists from policymaking positions but has granted a number of waivers to high-ranking officials, including Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn.

Personally, I don’t think lobbyists should be excluded from policymaking positions solely because they were lobbyists at one point in their careers.  I do think it…

Thursday, October 21st, 2010 at 10:11am

Will Colin Powell be the Next Secretary of Defense?

An interesting post by Jason Sigger at Armchair Generalist got me thinking about who will be the next Secretary of Defense, as Secretary Gates’s tenure begins to wind down.  It’s widely believed that he will step down sometime in early to mid-2011.  Personally, I think President Obama will get some serious backlash if he selects General Powell to replace Secretary Gates.  I think there’s already a feeling within Democratic national security circles that he shouldn’t have asked Gates to remain in the position in the first place, that he should have selected a Democrat. Sigger isn’t a fan of Powell for the job, writing that,

…the February 2003 speech to the United Nations, featuring the faux vial of anthrax, still sits out there….

Tuesday, October 19th, 2010 at 9:16pm

China’s Sea-Based Nuclear Deterrent in 2020

As part of my nuclear fellowship with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), I authored a piece on the future of China’s sea-based nuclear deterrent.  This article was recently published by in a collection of essays on nuclear issues:  A Collection of Papers from the 2010 Nuclear Scholars Initiative (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2010).  The are some outstanding essays in the collection on a range of important nuclear topics.

My article examines the burgeoning nuclear capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN).  The intent of the article is to draw attention to Chinese investment in its nuclear forces.  There is no shortage of literature examining Chinese conventional military modernization efforts; but judging by recent…

Sunday, October 17th, 2010 at 6:13am

Realism in Republican Foreign Policy Thought

Posted by Tom Skypek in American Foreign Policy, Conservatism

Colin Dueck, associate professor of public and international affairs at George Mason University, has a very thoughtful piece on realism and American foreign policy in the latest issue of Policy Review. In the article, Dueck reviews the foreign policy legacies of three Republican presidents–Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush–and outlines a clear way ahead for Republican policymakers seeking to reintroduce realism into foreign policy decision making.  Dueck writes:

There have always been at least three main strains or schools of thought in conservative and Republican foreign policy thinking: those represented by nationalists, hawks, and realists. Nationalists emphasize the protection of American sovereignty. Hawks emphasize both the moral and the practical arguments for military intervention overseas. Realists emphasize the careful…

Saturday, October 2nd, 2010 at 9:18am

Daniel Larison on Mitch Daniels and Foreign Policy

Posted by Tom Skypek in American Foreign Policy

Interesting post on Mitch Daniels and foreign policy from Daniel Larson.  We definitely need a candidate who will rethink our foreign policy commitments and focus on reducing the national debt and preserving our liberty and prosperity at home.  We engage in foreign affairs not to remake the world in our image but to protect our liberty here in the states.

Friday, October 1st, 2010 at 3:42pm

Krauthammer on Afghanistan: “Why Is He Sending Them?”

Charles Krauthammer has a very important piece in National Review on our involvement in Afghanistan and the shortcomings of Barack Obama as a wartime president.  Krauthammer writes:

What kind of commander in chief sends tens of thousands of troops to war while announcing in advance a fixed date for beginning their withdrawal? One who doesn’t have his heart in it. One who doesn’t really want to win but is making some kind of political gesture. One who thinks he has to be seen as trying but is preparing the ground — meaning, the political cover — for failure.

We need to either go “all in” in Afghanistan or withdraw the majority of our land forces and conduct more limited operations relying primarily on special operations forces…

Tuesday, September 28th, 2010 at 8:22pm

Pledge to America Light on Foreign Policy Thinking

An interesting critique from liberal blogger Max Bergmann of the GOP’s Pledge to America which conspicuously fails to address, in any substantive terms, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This isn’t a national security election. But the United States still has more than 100,000 troops engaged in combat in two different countries. You would think that if you were the opposition party laying out your plan for American that would be worth a mention, no?

In the 45 page “Pledge to America,” subtitled “a new governing agenda built on the priorities of our nation,” the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq apparently don’t amount to a GOP priority worth mentioning…

…There are platitudes of course. It notes “we are a nation at…

© 2010 Hope is Not a Foreign Policy: Conservative commentary on foreign policy, American politics, and current events