Hope is Not a Foreign Policy » Current Events

Crossroads GPS: Shovel Ready

Tom Skypek — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:35:01 +0000

It’s a bold move–laughing about a $1 trillion spending policy that didn’t work while the national debt exceeds $14 trillion and 14 million Americans are unemployed.

Conservative Critics of the Libya Campaign Aren’t Isolationist–They’re Realists

Tom Skypek — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 11:41:31 +0000

The continued military adventure in Libya, the House of Representatives’ ambiguous rebuke of the President, and the President’s recent speech on Afghanistan, has led to a number of thoughtful articles on the current trajectory of our foreign policy which I wanted to share.

Colin Dueck, GOP Isolationist? No, Just More Jacksonian, RealClearPolitics
Tony Blankley, McCain Is Wrong: GOP Not Isolationist, The Washington Times
George Will, John McCain’s Never-ending War, The Washington Post

Lastly, I wanted to share the piece I wrote for RealClearPolitics, Conservatism Does Not End at America’s Shorelines. Like the three authors above, I, too, was prompted by the misleading comments of Sens. McCain and Graham. What the conservative intellectual movement needs is a substantive, honest debate on the merits of various foreign policy approaches. Throwing verbal firebombs does not constitute a serious debate. Reasonably people can certainly disagree but let’s hear the arguments. I’ve received some interesting feedback on the piece thus far. What is encouraging is that even among folks who disagree with my preferred approach, most concede the point on cost/national interest which is the crux of my argument. Foreign policy and military affairs are not exempt from the economic realities that govern the rest of human affairs.

Obama’s Reticence on Libya Result of “Scheduling Issue”

Tom Skypek — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:10:57 +0000

See for yourself.

Libya Highlights Obama’s Foreign Policy Confusion

Tom Skypek — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:39:18 +0000

There are few things more important to a statesman than credibility and consistency when it comes to administering a nation’s foreign policy. The Obama administration’s response to recent events in Egypt and Libya underscore its foreign policy confusion. The White House has a peculiar habit of treating allied governments and adversarial governments as equals. This stems from President Barack Obama’s professed belief that all nations are indeed equal in Washington’s eyes. Of course, the reality of international politics is quite the opposite. More than two-thousand years of human history support this fact. Some states, whose national interests overlap and intersect, join together as allies. States whose national interests collide tend to have more adversarial relationships.

Understanding the role alliance systems play in international politics is a basic requirement for any successful statesmen. Judging by the administration’s impartial treatment of other nations (both allies and adversaries), it appears as though this important fact is lost on the president and his senior advisors. Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War communicates not only the centrality of military power in the conduct of international politics but the critical role of alliance systems. While its primary actors were the city-states of Athens and Sparta, the story of the Peloponnesian War is a tale of alliance systems. In the end, it was the Spartan-led Peloponnesian League that defeated the Athenian-led Delian League.

Now consider President Obama’s treatment of Egypt (a U.S. ally) and Libya (a U.S. adversary). The Obama administration was more than eager to push former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak from power. The president held two major press conferences and issued numerous statements through White House channels urging, albeit in sometimes veiled language, for Mubarak to step aside. Mubarak, a benign dictator and strong U.S. ally, received no support from the White House during the crisis, whose message was based more on platitudes than substantive and thoughtful policy. Now a military dictatorship has supplanted Mubarak and it appears that elections may follow at a later date. The risk, of course, is that an Islamist government assumes power democratically and then proceeds to turn Egypt into a one-party state.

Now take Libya and its flamboyant and repressive leader, Muammar Gaddafi, who has masterminded and been linked to numerous terrorist attacks over the last four decades, many of which have led directly to American deaths. Some of Gaddafi’s terrorist bona fides include: the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, the 1986 bombing of the German discotheque, and Pan Am Flight 103. During the recent protests, Gaddafi has used tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft to attack civilian protesters (one report puts the death toll at 560); Mubarak did no such thing in attempting to maintain civil order during the protests in Egypt.

One would reasonably assume that Gaddafi’s regime should be on the receiving end of much more critical rhetoric from the White House. However, it was Egypt—a U.S. ally—which received more pointed criticism from the White House, along with the de facto request that Mubarak step aside so that another dictatorship could assume the reins of power. Gaddafi—a longtime adversary with American blood on his hands—has received virtually the same treatment afforded Mubarak. What type of message does this send to U.S. allies? Certainly not a message of consistency, credibility, or reassurance.

During the 2009-2010 popular uprisings in Iran following the Iranian presidential election, the White House was mostly reticent as the regime violently suppressed the protests. Again, President Obama’s reticence is difficult to understand; the protesters were standing in opposition to the brutally repressive and staunchly anti-U.S. regime in Tehran. Washington should have been more vocal in its support of the protesters. The Obama administration’s inconsistency in dealing with Egypt and Libya highlights its poor understanding of the role alliances play in international politics. The president and his senior advisors need to re-read Thucydides.

It’s the Oil, Stupid – Part II

Tom Skypek — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:53:30 +0000

Oil prices jumped 8.5% today as the popular uprisings in Libya continued. This is exactly what I was talking about last week in my post, “It’s the Oil, Stupid.” Instability creates uncertainty and uncertainty drives up oil prices. Because we’re slaves to Middle Eastern crude oil, Washington has to cow-tow to two-bit dictators and the price-fixing cartel OPEC. This is a choice, though. When we get serious about energy independence we can fundamentally change this dynamic. Unfortunately, as I noted last week, “The Obama administration has declared war on the coal industry through its proposed cap-and-trade legislation (and likely forthcoming EPA regulations); the licensing process for building new nuclear power plants has not been accelerated and the administration refuses to grant additional offshore drilling permits.”

Huckabee Declines to Take Shot At Daniels

Tom Skypek — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:01:57 +0000

Via Tim Alberta at the National Journal:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) doesn’t like the idea of Republicans calling a “truce” on social issues to focus on fixing the economy — but that doesn’t mean he’s eager to take on the man pushing that message, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R).

“I’m a fan of Mitch Daniels,” Huckabee said on a conference call with reporters Monday, adding that Daniels has “an extraordinary skill set not only to be governor but to be president.”

Huckabee was speaking with reporters one day before the release of his book, “A Simple Government,” in which he writes: “I’ve been criticized many times for talking so much about ‘social issues’ when the real issue now, according to some people, is the economy. Well, buckle up, Turbo, because here’s a simple, inarguable fact: Every broken, fatherless family has a tremendous economic impact.”

Huckabee made it clear that while he admires Daniels and could even see himself supporting the Hoosier for president, Republicans “don’t need to be talking about a truce.”

“I believe conservatives can walk and chew gum at the same time,” said Huckabee, who stressed that one of the underlying themes of his book is that “there’s no way to disconnect social issues from the economic,” because there are “direct consequences from social breakdowns.”

Last year, Huckabee was critical of Daniels’ proposed truce on social issues, and his book shows that he won’t be shy about continuing to express his disapproval of the idea.

Huckabee’s book, which runs 210 pages, carries the subtitle: “Twelve Things We Really Need from Washington (and a Trillion That We Don’t!)”

A lesser man would have taken this opportunity to slam Daniels over his “truce” comments. Say what you will about Mike Huckabee but he’s a stand-up guy.

Cantor and 91 Other House Republicans Cower from Spending Cuts

Tom Skypek — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:40:30 +0000

As Adam Bitely from NetRightDaily.com reported, 92 House Republicans voted against Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan’s amendment to the Continuing Resolution which would have cut nearly $100 billion in spending. Among those voting against the spending cuts were House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy. The real conservatives in Republican leadership positions, Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and Republican Caucus Chairman Jeb Hensarling, voted in favor of the amendment.

Either you’re serious about cutting spending or you’re not. Despite his tough talk, Cantor let down the voters of Virginia. We have no money. We’re broke. This isn’t the first time that Cantor has failed voters. In 2009, Cantor and 84 other Republicans voted to support the unconstitutional AIG bonus tax. These firms shouldn’t have been bailed out in the first place but passing a law taxing individuals only added insult to injury.

Has the Republican leadership forgotten about the elections of November 2010? The Tea Party movement should be angry. Republicans who talk tough about spending cuts and then fail to deliver on critical votes are no better than their liberal-progressive counterparts. This was an important vote. Even if the measure had passed, $100 billion doesn’t even big to scratch the surface. If the Republicans are going to accomplish any of their objectives they need strong conservatives in leadership positions. Cantor should step aside.

The Tea Party Movement Must Stand with Governor Walker

Tom Skypek — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 01:01:00 +0000

Like the federal government and much of the rest of the country, Wisconsin is broke. As such, Governor Scott Walker has courageously asked public employees to make a 5.8% contribution to their pensions, which is roughly equal to the national average. He’s also asked them to pay 12.6% of their health insurance costs, which is about half the national average. These are hardly unreasonable requests considering that most Americans are paying much more out of their own pockets. At a time when most Americans are tightening their family budgets these unions expect a free ride when it comes to health care and retirement savings. Governor Walker stands in stark contrast to Barack Obama who has passed up every opportunity to cut the deficit and reduce our debt. Then he has the audacity to call Walker’s proposal an “assault” on unions. Talk about playing fast and loose with the facts.

Our socialist friends and the mainstream media want us to believe that the protests in Wisconsin are organic, grassroots demonstrations. Out comes the class warfare card. The reality is that this is an astroturf operation if there ever was one. Obama’s campaign organization–Organizing for America–and the Democratic National Committee–are funding and busing in union members throughout the country. This is classic campaign politics. Obama wants to win re-election and he can’t do that without the union vote.

This is where the Tea Party movement needs to step in and help out the govenor. The movement can’t fade away now that November 2010 has come and gone. This is another fight that needs to be won.

Put the Students First: Fire the Striking Teachers

Tom Skypek — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 01:31:56 +0000

From the Editors at Investor’s Business Daily:

Labor: Unionized Wisconsin teachers should be ashamed of their response to legislation that would end their privilege to bargain collectively. And if such lousy behavior continues, they should be relieved of their duties.

The Wisconsin government is in a financial hole, operating with a $137 million deficit for the current fiscal year ending June 30. Its future is filled with bigger deficits, projected to be as large as $3.6 billion.

One way to cut into the shortfall is to end the public employee unions’ collective bargaining privilege that has landed them the generous salaries and benefits the taxpayers are struggling to pay.

Doing what voters elected him to do, new Republican Gov. Scott Walker introduced a bill last week that would strip nonfederal government workers in Wisconsin of their collective bargaining license and require them to contribute more to their benefits package.

Public school teachers, who would not be the only public employees affected, responded as if they took their cues from their students. They marched like spoiled entitlement queens on the Capitol in Madison and threw a tantrum, leaving behind trash and tarnished images that someone else has to clean up.

The teachers are so incensed that 40% of the 2,600 of them who are in the Madison collective bargaining unit cut class Wednesday to demonstrate.

This prompted school officials to cancel classes Wednesday and again Thursday, which is cheating students — and taxpayers — out of two days of learning.

But this is all about the kids, right? Isn’t that why some teachers even took students with them to protest, as one student so eloquently put it, “whatever this dude is doing”?

The media are labeling Walker’s plan to cut costs bold and aggressive, which it is. It is also overdue.

But it is not extreme, as one poorly informed college-student protester claimed.

If the governor’s proposal becomes law, public employees would have to pay half of their pension contributions and at least 12.6% of their health care insurance premiums. Overall, their costs would go up by 8%.

Considering that private-sector workers who aren’t protected by favorable laws have been hit much harder, that’s a modest impact. It is not, as Barack Obama, president of the United States — not president of the local union hall — has suggested, “an assault on unions.”

And it’s a much better outcome than layoffs, which will come in the thousands if not tens of thousands if the legislation doesn’t become law.

Teachers belong in classrooms, not in mass protests. The only teaching they can do at demonstrations is to show their students how not to act.

Some protesters have chanted “Recall Walker now,” but it’s the teachers, not the governor, who should be losing their jobs if they refuse to perform them.

This editorial really says it all. The unions have destroyed public education in America. It’s time to put the students first. The striking teachers should be relieved of their duties.

Conservatives Shouldn’t Fear Cuts to Defense Budget

Tom Skypek — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 23:32:51 +0000

Social Security may be the third rail of American politics, but the defense budget is at least worthy of notable mention. In fact, the defense budget is arguably the most politically sensitive budget item after entitlement spending. Conservatives and Republicans, who have enjoyed an advantage over their liberal counterparts on national security issues since Vietnam, too often associate a “strong national defense” simply with increases in defense spending—without considering the expenditures in the context of broader U.S. grand strategy. Many conservatives and Republicans are reluctant to propose cuts to the defense budget out of fear for appearing weak. Many just lack any strategic sense and simply follow the big government internationalism crowd which includes both liberals and parts of the conservative movement.

Liberals and Democrats are split into two camps: There are those Democrats who remember the Left’s shameful behavior during the Vietnam War and are reluctant to propose cuts out of fear for appearing weak. Then there are liberals and Democrats who can’t cut enough from the defense budget and have lost sight of the important fact that one of the few constitutional responsibilities of the federal government is to provide for the “common defence.”

Then there is a third category which includes liberals and Democrats, conservatives and Republicans: politicians with defense contractors in their states. These politicians are reluctant to cut defense programs even when they’re no longer needed in order to protect jobs in their districts and states. The F-22 is a case in point.

So what did President Obama do with the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 defense budget? He did what was politically safe and made no cuts to the baseline budget but slightly reduced funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a liberal Democrat, he is extra sensitive to being perceived as weak and can’t afford the political risks associated with larger cuts to the defense budget; he does want a second term so why stoke the Jimmy Carter comparisons? Justin Fishel writing at FoxNews.com provides a good snapshot of the FY 2010, 2011, and 2012 budgets:

In 2010 there was a base budget of $531 billion, with an additional $130 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, known as OCO (Overseas Contingency Operations) funding. President Bush called it Global War on Terror or GWOT funding, a term dropped by Obama. Later in 2010 President Obama added another $33 billion in supplemental spending to fund the 30,000-man troop surge in Afghanistan.

2010 grand total: $694,000,000,000

The proposal for FY 2011 asked for a $549 billion base, with $159 in OCO spending.

2011 proposed grand total: $708,000,000,000

The FY 2012 defense budget asks for $553 billion in base spending, with $118 billion for the wars. That significant decrease in war spending is directly related to heavy troop withdrawals in Iraq.

2012 proposed grand total: $671,000,000,000

In January Secretary Gates announced a plan to cut $78 billion in defense spending over five years. The largest savings would come from shrinking the size of the Army by 27,000 soldiers and the Marines by 15 – 20,000 in the year 2015. That assumes the war in Afghanistan will be over for the U.S. by the end of 2014.

If you’re going to cut defense spending it makes sense to slash ineffective pet programs, of which the Pentagon has many, rather than funds for ongoing operations in Iraq and, especially, Afghanistan. I don’t agree with our current strategy in Afghanistan, but if we have troops in harm’s way we have a moral obligation to fully fund them. Anyone who has worked in the Pentagon has seen these pet programs and inefficiencies, though Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has made some significant progress in streamling Pentagon operations.

Thinking about the defense budget in a vacuum is strategically unsound but a common practice in Washington. A budget is required to help an organization achieve its objectives; a budget is a means to an end. So this begs the question: what is our grand strategy? Rather than reflexively opposing cuts to the defense budget, conservatives should not cower from reasonable cuts to the defense budget. Any analysis should consider the following four questions:

For what reasons does America engage in foreign affairs?
What are America’s national interests?
What are the threats those interests?
What is America’s grand strategy?

The answers to these questions will determine what kind of military is required to support these ends and how much it will cost. I believe that our current grand strategy is too costly and disconnected from the national interest and Constitution. I recently laid out my vision for a conservative foreign policy in the Washington Examiner in a piece entitled, “It’s time to end big government internationalism.” In it I argued:

Since the end of the Cold War, American statesmen have defined the national interest in far too broad of terms, squandering taxpayer dollars in support of a foreign policy that does not clearly advance America’s core national interests. In FY 2008, Washington provided foreign aid to about 154 countries. Today, the U.S. military has a presence in about 150 countries. The majority of these aid packages and military deployments do little to promote America’s national interests; still, this type of big government internationalism has become unquestioned convention for the Washington foreign policy establishment and conservatives are as guilty as their liberal counterparts in pushing the global welfare state.

Many Republican and Democratic policymakers conflate American diplomatic, economic, and military primacy with omnipotence. As a result, they have consistently failed to reconcile America’s desired end states with its available means—eschewing important economic realities such as the $14 trillion national debt while failing to make the difficult tradeoffs often required of effective statesmen. In order to avoid the fate of previous great powers, the United States should adopt an economically sustainable grand strategy that advances a set of more narrowly defined national interests, encourages burden-sharing among its allies, and is consistent with the Constitution. More specifically, Washington should reduce its global footprint, keep its military power in abeyance, and discharge that power only in defense of the national interest.

The sole aim of Washington’s international engagement should be the preservation of American political and economic liberty—not to remake the world in its image. In his book, A Foreign Policy for Americans, former U.S. Senator Robert Taft argued, “I do not believe it is a selfish goal for us to insist that the overriding purpose of all American foreign policy should be the maintenance of the liberty and peace of our people of the United States…”

So where would I cut? I would do a few things right off the bat. I would redeploy the 50,000 military personnel we currently have in Europe (it costs serious money to train, equip, and sustain forces in a foreign country). Correspondingly, I would scale back our commitments to NATO. NATO is a military alliance without a clear mission. It achieved its Cold War-era objectives, but it is no longer useful in the 21st century; it should be replaced with bilateral or smaller multilateral alliances to increase burden-sharing and reduce the stress on the U.S. force. The alliance’s biggest test in recent years–Afghanistan–has yielded disappointing results. The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)–the NATO military organ in charge of operations in Afghanistan–places the vast majority of the burden on the U.S. Some troops have quipped that ISAF really stands for “I saw an American fight.”

I would also adopt a new strategy in Afghanistan, one that significantly reduces our land (conventional ground forces) commitments and emphasizes special operations forces and airpower. In terms of major acquisition programs, I would initiate a sweeping program review to weed out costly programs which are not required to achieve our military and defense policy objectives. Each military service has pet programs which continue to exist more because they embody the service culture (read U.S. Air Force and the F-22) than actual military requirements. Weapons acquisition must be driven by military requirements, not service cultures or Capitol Hill politics.

Defense is one of the few legitimate responsibilities of the federal government. There are many other programs, which are well beyond the scope of the government’s responsibilities, which should be eliminated all together to address our dire fiscal situation. Conservatives need to realize, however, that there is nothing unconservative about reasoned and rational cuts to the defense budget. The fact remains that there is waste in the Pentagon and part of that waste stems from an overly costly grand strategy, one that is disconnected from America’s core national interests. Republicans in Congress must think very carefully about this nation’s involvement in foreign affairs and whether our current strategy is appropriate. The Tea Party movement should take this opportunity to extend its limited government message to U.S. foreign policy. Without pressure from the Tea Party movement, many Republicans will shrink from this challenge.