The basis of GOP foreign policy has been preventive war

In October 2002, a few days before the U.S. Senate voted on the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, about 75 senators were told in closed session that Iraq had the means to attack the Eastern Seaboard of the U.S. with biological or chemical weapons delivered by unmanned aerial vehicles.

Richard Clarke, America's former counter-terrorism chief indicated Mr Bush who came to office with a plan to invade Iraq. In fact, a Project for the New American Centry (PNAC) memo surfaced that indicated Republicans had been planning to invade Iraq prior to the election of GW Bush.

An unofficial US armed Forces philosophy is that a strong offensive capability is the best defense. 


This is very different view from the Russains who developed a defensive surface to air missile (SAM) capability.

In 1953 SAM tests were being conducted against crewed copies of B-29 bombers and sites around Moscow were operational.

This first production Soviet missile was known to the West as the SA-1 Guild.


source: Wikipedia and http://www.astronautix.com

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA




Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Marco's little foreign policy speech

Marco Rubio spoke about foreign policy at the Brooking Institution. Marco thought Republicans needed to retreat from isolationist positions and have a more proactive role in international affairs.

Marco was disappointed the US didn't have a bigger leadership role in Libya. Of course, Libya was a NATO operation and the US had a supporting role. It cost the US about $ one billion and the job got done.

Perhaps with Marco's approach, there would have been more glory for the US. Rightardia prefers the cost-effective coalition approach of Obama.

Marco chastised US foreign policy on Syria. Syria is a Russian client state and the Russians had a warship in one of the Syrian ports. The Russian's also had their special forces (Spetnaz) on alert to deploy to Syria. Marco was blowing a lot of hot air about Syria. The US is not going to get into a direct confrontation with the Russians if it can be avoided. Certainly, not over Syria.

At this time, the US is involved in delicate negotiations with Iran. Senator Rubio would also advocate  military action against Iran. Is Marco pandering for votes?

Probably not because the American Jewish community is small. Rubio is probably pandering for more campaign contributions for this affluent group.

The real problem with US foreign policy is that the state department is too small. Robert Gates, the former Secretary of Defense, pointed out that that it cost more for one carrier task force than the entire State Department. The lack of foreign language linguists is also a problem that could be easily corrected with a Federal program.

Foreign policy under GOP presidents has been hawkish and every modern GOP president has started wars. Bush I brought us the first Iraq War and Bush II brought us the second Iraq War and Afghanistan. Ronald Reagan ran around and destabilized Central and South America and the Caribbean.

This hawkish activity caused the defense budgets and deficit to climb. It is clear in the present US economy, the US can no longer afford adventurist wars under the guise of providing liberty to the people of a country we attack.

Marco Rubio said:

It is a mainstream, bipartisan belief that America benefits from the spread of liberal societies, markets and ideals. 

Rubio's speech was  departure form the neo-conservatives rants of the past. Men such as John Bolton come to mind with all of his belligerent rhetoric.

Rubio also specifically defended US foreign aid as a “cost-effective” method to “strengthen our influence, the effectiveness of our leadership.”

Marco's speech has a more moderate tone than other Republicans such as Net Gingrich, a pro-Israeli hawk, and Ron Paul, a constitutional isolationist. 

This is an improvement from what we have heard form the GOP on foreign policy so far. However, the Obama foreign policy is working well and it is unlikely a GOP executive branch could improve on it. 

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA




Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Al Jazeera English: How the West de-democratised the Middle East

The US has been prevaricating in the middle east for along time with little effect. The Al Jazeera article explains some of the outcomes of Western democratization. The author also notes that Islamic societies have no notion of the separation of church and state. 

"Is Islam compatible with democracy? 

The predominant answer for many years was "no". Among others, Elie Kedourie, MS Lipset, and Huntington advocated such a position. Bernard Lewis, "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East", who offered "the intellectual ammunition for the Iraq War", was most vociferous in upholding this position. Their main argument was that, unlike Christianity, Islam was unique in not differentiating religion from the state and hence democracy was impossible in Muslim polities. Against this doxa, I make three arguments.

First, the position that Islam is incompatible with democracy was false from the beginning, because it served imperial ambitions of the West and violated Muslims' self-perception that, not only is Islam compatible with democracy, it was one of the engines of democratic empowerment.

Second, I argue that the West's discourse of democratisation of the Middle East is dubious because it hides how the West actually de-democratised the Middle East. My contention is that, from the 1940s onwards, democratic experiments were well in place and the West subverted them to advance its own interests. I offer three examples of de-democratisation: The reportedly CIA-engineered coup against the elected government of Syria in 1949, the couporchestrated by the US and UK against the democratic Iran in 1953 and subversion of Bahrain's democracy in the 1970s. I also touch on the West's recent de-democratisation in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

Third, I explain that the Middle East was de-democratised because the West rarely saw it as a collection of peoplewith dynamic, rich social-cultural textures."

See the complete article at:
How the West de-democratised the Middle East - Opinion - Al Jazeera English Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

LA Times: Ron Paul says US foreign policy affected 911 attack

Rightardia has said this for a long time. The US foreign policy in the middle east needs to be more neutral. Our so-called ally Israel has been a liability and alienated us from 1 billion people of the Islamic faith.

It good to see a Republican telling the truth for once. Congressman Paul is a principled conservative.

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA   


  


Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.