GOP Lacks Leadership on Foreign Policy

By
Monday, March 09, 2009 at 6:00 am
Sen. John McCain (WDCpix)

Sen. John McCain (WDCpix)

During his first 45 days in office, President Obama has made several sharp departures from the foreign policies of the Bush administration that were shaped in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. Obama has announced a timetable for staggered withdrawal from Iraq. He has ordered 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and engaged in a wide-ranging review of U.S. war aims. And he has begun exploring direct negotiations with the Iranian government.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

And the response from the conservative movement and the Republican Party — which turned or sought to turn every election after 9/11 into a referendum on foreign policy and national security — has largely been either silence or agreement.

To some degree, conservatives say, the still-nascent Obama administration’s foreign policy needs time to develop before a critique can emerge. And when the administration enacts policies that the Republican party finds agreeable, as with the troop increase in Afghanistan, it would make little sense to attack. But that leads to a broader problem that leading conservatives identify: in the wake of the Bush administration, the question of what exactly Republican foreign policy is remains unsettled. Several GOP decisionmakers say bluntly that they are unsure who the leading foreign-policy figures on the right are anymore.

For the Republican Party, which has so long prided itself on its perceived dominance over questions of America’s role abroad, to be without clear foreign-policy leaders is a striking development. Preeminent among the GOP old-guard foreign-policy establishment is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who structured his 2008 presidential campaign around the argument that Obama was dangerously ignorant of geopolitics. Yet McCain gave a speech to the American Enterprise Institute on Feb. 25 that applauded Obama’s troop increase and urged a greater infusion of civilian resources, a direction that Obama administration officials have already indicated they’ll embrace when the new Afghanistan strategy is released next month. More surprisingly, after warning on the campaign trail that withdrawing from Iraq along a fixed timeline risked squandering the security gains made by the surge, McCain’s spokeswoman told The New York Times that the senator was “supportive of the plan.”

While significant portions of the conservative movement regard McCain as an apostate, he is perhaps the most prominent Republican to make any foreign policy speech at all since Obama’s election, indicating a leadership vacuum on the right over the issue. “You’ve got an interesting intellectual leveling now,” said Christian Brose, a policy advisor and chief speechwriter for former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who now edits and writes on Foreign Policy magazine’s “Shadow Government” blog, which seeks to provide a conservative critique of the administration’s foreign policy. “The folks who were in power and running things lost. Now you have a more level intellectual [playing] field, a less hierarchical environment that’s hungry for new thinking about policy and ready for an open debate on the question of first principles.”

To some in the neoconservative camp, that hunger indicates a defeat. “Right now the democratic forces have cratered,” said Mario Loyola, who in January left a staff position directing foreign policy for the Senate Republican Policy Committee. “The whole Bush, ‘we need democracy abroad to be safe at home’ [argument] has cratered among conservatives. So it’s the fall of the neocons on foreign policy, clearly.” Last month, Richard Perle, a former arms-control official in the Reagan administration and neoconservative eminence, gave a talk at the Nixon Center denying that he was a neoconservative or that there was any such thing as neoconservative foreign policy.

With Iraq, some on the right have explained the broader lack of criticism of Obama’s withdrawal strategy by considering the approach coterminous with Bush’s policies. “We think we won the argument — we won the war to defeat the insurgents,” Loyola continued. “The plan we had in 2005 worked: build up the Iraqi security forces, picture a long term alliance [with the Iraqis]” against an “Iranian enemy.” The opposition on the right was to a “congressionally mandated timetable,” he said, not to timetables for withdrawal themselves. Grover Norquist, the influential head of Americans for Tax Reform, said that aides to George W. Bush told him privately that a withdrawal strategy “was always their plan.”

In March 2007, however, then-Vice President Dick Cheney said a timeline would allow “the enemy to watch the clock and wait us out,” and that withdrawing from Iraq would reward terrorism. “If terrorists conclude attacks will change the behavior of a nation, they will attack the nation again and again,” he argued at a forum of the America Israel Public Affairs Committee. In July 2008, George W. Bush said that he continued to oppose “an artificial timetable for withdrawal” in an agreement on the U.S. troop presence with the Iraqi government and said the Obama campaign’s promise to withdraw from Iraq would amount to “giv[ing] up in the struggle against this enemy.” Months later, the Iraqi government forced the Bush administration to sign an accord that guaranteed a full troop withdrawal by December 2011.

On Afghanistan, there is an ideological struggle about what war strategy should be — but it’s confined to the left. A coalition of progressive activists called Get Afghanistan Right has argued against the buildup of U.S. troops, while an alternative progressive coalition convened by the National Security Network has supported it. Both are trying to influence the Obama administration’s strategy review. Yet most observers on the right who have spoken on the subject have tended to support the administration’s troop increase. At a Feb. 18 AEI forum on Afghanistan, neoconservative defense analysts Fred Kagan and Tom Donnelly blessed the administration’s troop decision while also urging the need for a concurrent increase from across the civilian agencies of the U.S. government, a point also made by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy during her confirmation hearing in January. Matt Duss, a research associate at the liberal Center for American Progress, observed “the far more vigorous debate over the future of the US intervention in Afghanistan — and about American national security in general — is now taking place on the left.”

Ideological positions on Afghanistan have yet to congeal on the right. Added Loyola, “There is not an ideological alignment,” saying that when it comes to crafting an effective strategy in Afghanistan, “the difficulty is overwhelming.” Brose believed that there nevertheless were certain baseline positions on Afghanistan that conservatives embraced. “The emerging consensus is, we need a counterinsurgency strategy, and the only way to pursue counterterrorism effectively is to protect the population, with a robust effort for assisting the [Afghan] government as it develops,” Brose said.

Norquist said that for the right, the greater and more immediate concern was the economy, as the Obama administration seeks a broad expansion of the government’s role, an idea anathema to conservatives. Foreign policy is “not an issue that moves attention and votes,” he said. “Right now you can light yourself on fire and give a foreign policy speech and Fox News will not cover you.”

Still, there is no shortage of conservative criticism of Obama on discrete security-related questions, as opposed to broader questions of foreign policy. Obama’s plan to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility has aroused significant conservative objections. “The thought of sending these terrorists to the United States where they could possibly be released is a great mistake,” said Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Tex.), the ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee’s intelligence subcommittee, after visiting Guantanamo last month. Last month, Cheney alleged that the Obama administration was “more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States.”

Loyola, who will soon head to Mexico to report on a piece for National Review, said that he hoped the GOP would reject what he called “Alamo Conservatives” who believe it necessary to fight the Obama administration on everything. But he said it would be necessary for an inter-movement struggle to take place in order to reestablish what it is the conservative movement and the Republican Party believes. “It’s not that we have no leaders, we have no consensus of ideas either,” he said. “The collapse of ideology and leadership on foreign policy on the Republican side is mesmerizing. There’s no consensus on anything.”

Some members of the old-guard neoconservative movement are attempting to reforge that consensus. National Journal reported in January that neoconservative luminaries like Weekly Standard publisher William Kristol, the Kagan brothers and a former spokesman for the U.S. occupation authority in Iraq, Dan Senor, were exploring the establishment of a new conservative foreign-policy think tank-cum-messaging institution. Calls to Senor’s office in New York were not returned.

Brose hopes his blog can step into the space vacated by the collapse of the Republican foreign-policy consensus. Its contributors are mostly veterans of the Bush administration at mid-tier positions, making them experienced enough to understand the challenges of governing but young enough to have been charged with implementing policy rather than making it. Brose said he wants to “pull in responsible people from the center-right to the right, who look at foreign policy from a reality-based perspective.” His writers are “more than willing to stand up and applaud when the Obama administration does good things, or lend support and cover on an issue by issue basis. But as the administration’s foreign policy starts to take shape more, we’ll also continue to engage in criticism and sketch out alternatives. We’ll call it as we see it.”

If that “reality-based” effort doesn’t succeed, he said, “then the right could end up in a pretty bad place.”

Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter


Comments

15 Comments

Wonk Room » The WonkLine: March 9, 2009
Pingback posted March 9, 2009 @ 9:13 am

[...] Ackerman writes about the absence of new Republican ideas on foreign [...]


Diane
Comment posted March 9, 2009 @ 9:31 am

The neocons and repubs must cede foreign policy to Obama and the Dems because they don't know how to give tax cuts to foreign countries.


john
Comment posted March 9, 2009 @ 9:48 am

Oh… it's only a matter of time before they find a loophole that could give tax cuts to those who seek to overthrow democratically elected governments in other countries.


Iron Will
Comment posted March 9, 2009 @ 10:12 am

I don't expect that the far right understands what reality is…. so good luck to you sir.


The_Sword_Of_Truth
Comment posted March 9, 2009 @ 10:26 am

This headline begs the question since it is abundantly clear that the GOP never had any leadership on foreign policies these last eight years. Look at the terrible mess they left behind. The less GOP leadership on foreign policies the better. Adding to their absolute lack of leadership on economic policies over $1,000,000,000,000 deficit left behind when times were supposed to be 'good' and proposing a $3, 000,000,000,000 tax cuts for the rich as their solution to the economic crises.

They could not govern – evidenced by the last eight years, cannot play being in opposition with any degree of common sense, decorum or humility – see them flounder and flail in the wind. One has to ask over and again, what exactly does the GOP stand for? Answers on the back of a postage stamp please!!


mark
Comment posted March 9, 2009 @ 10:47 am

that conservative leadership gap is so big only rush could fill it.


Carolyn LeBeauf
Comment posted March 9, 2009 @ 11:09 am

The Gop has never had any forgein policy or ideas, they were all too busy getting their pockets lined with cash from lobbists, drug companies, oil companies and any other places they could. That's why this country is in the hole. As far as McCain ,this man lives in the pass. He still thinks he is flying planes in Viet Nam. He is so senile and disaggreable. Gop knows nothing but obstruct.


alberta treadway
Comment posted March 9, 2009 @ 11:10 am

Actually , is the first senseable article I've on the republican side in a long time. I opted out of the republican party because they have no direction,not idea, and no matter what idea's obama administration has, they say NO! No communication, just screaming, throwing bills on the senate floor, and bring idiots like RUSH, and Ann coulter in to talk at CPAC, instead of some education, intelligent republicans with new idea's and leadership! This party needs new direction! It needs to be seen working with this administration, and showing it cares about America,it direction and the people who hired them! They don't always have to agree, but when they don't, than they should be ready to put a new idea and direction on the table that the Demacrates and American people can see and work with. This is what we want from the Republican party. Not throw away all that work in the past, but most of it and start over with progressive idea's. New technology, and catch up with the up and comeing new idea's for energy, and be more than “Drill baby Drill”! Now that in itself was and is sad. Stop nominateing black men like steele, simply because they are black. The GOP needs a real leader, black or white don't matter to us. Stop throwing our young talent into the lime light, untilll they are ready. Don't do it because they happen to have a immigration story similiar to Obama!! When you elect someone or choose them to be a spokesman, look at their national,international talent,education,intellect,and surely if they are technology savy and can show that up front. There are young republicans(black and white, women and men) who are out there like that! Stop inviteing Rush/Hannity/Ann C. and the like as the brightest and best we can get to address our party, and start doing the leg/computor/research work needed to find them, and bring them in the fold and spend a few weeks getting them ready to inter our political relm. Thats what us republicans want and need, if you expect us to return to the party!


Peter777
Comment posted March 9, 2009 @ 11:16 am

The Republicans have no ideas to contribute. Moreover, we have no need for the type of leadership demonstrated during the last 8 years. The Republican neocons and reactionary right continue to run out of the party anyone who can think objectively and creatively about the nation's problems. Seems to be their method of attaining their death wish.


stephennnn
Comment posted March 9, 2009 @ 11:59 am

I think the article's title should be shortened to “GOP Lacks Leadership”.


Growver Apair
Comment posted March 9, 2009 @ 2:33 pm

Grover Norquist, the influential head of Americans for Tax Reform, said that aides to George W. Bush told him privately that a withdrawal strategy “was always their plan.” ???????

He also told me privately that a stimulus and a removal of stem cell research was always their plan. And he also told me the lottery numbers for yesterday were 2-45-39-10-11. I sure wish he would have made that public before today! Grover lives up to his name, Grover, what a shmuck.


Wally Hayman
Comment posted March 9, 2009 @ 4:15 pm

The Nixon Center?
Is there also a DeLay Center and a Duke Cunningham Center and a Scooter Libby Center and a Mark Foley Center and a Larry Craig Center and. and a Bob Ney Center and a Ted Stevens Center and…


Hawaiianstyle
Comment posted March 22, 2009 @ 12:24 am

The Headline to the article says, “GOP lacks leadership on foreign policy.”

The author could have dropped the, “…on foreign policy.” All he would have had to do after that is sign his name.


Hawaiianstyle
Comment posted March 22, 2009 @ 7:24 am

The Headline to the article says, “GOP lacks leadership on foreign policy.”

The author could have dropped the, “…on foreign policy.” All he would have had to do after that is sign his name.


louis vuitton
Comment posted August 6, 2010 @ 7:42 am

He also told me privately that a stimulus and a removal of stem cell research was always their plan. And he also told me the lottery numbers for yesterday were 2-45-39-10-11. I sure wish he would have made that public before today! Grover lives up to his name, Grover, what a shmuck.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.