Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
John McCain made a speech to the Center for a New American Security last Thursday in which he extols the virtues of Republican internationalism and criticizes other Republicans for wanting to "retreat into splendid isolation."
http://www.cnas.org/mccainspeech2013
quote:
This institute is part of a fine American tradition that believes that politics stops at the water’s edge. The dirty little secret, of course, is that it doesn’t. And it shouldn’t. Politics is how decisions are made in a democracy – not by bureaucrats, or the military, or the clergy, but by the elected representatives of the American people. National security policy is no different. And when it comes to the politics of national security, my beloved Republican Party has some soul-searching to do.
Our last election was not primarily, or even secondarily, about national security. But to the extent that a referendum was held on that issue, polls show that most Americans gave their vote to the Democrats. This was a sea change, and there are many reasons for it, but a major one is clearly the legacy of Iraq. As CNAS’s Phillip Carter has written, ‘The Republicans’ mismanagement of the war allowed Democrats to reclaim an issue lost to them since the Truman administration.’ He is right of course. And the result is that Republicans are now engaged in a fight for the soul of our Party on matters of national security and foreign policy.
I believe this debate is entirely a good thing. What Republicans need now is a vigorous contest of ideas on national security and foreign policy. This contest can and should be conducted respectfully and without name-calling – which is something that even an old whacko-bird like me must remember from time to time.
Of course, the stakes of this contest could not be more serious, as we were reminded on Monday by the terrorist attack in Boston. We are debating matters of life and death. And that is far more important than the future of any political party.
I cannot recall another time when our international challenges have been more complex or more uncertain. The project of European integration is facing existential pressures. The global economy continues its rapid shift toward the Pacific. The rise of China, and India, and other great powers is shifting the balance of power in Asia and the world. North Korea and Iran are developing nuclear and missile capabilities that constitute a direct threat to our nation. The old geopolitical order in the Middle East has collapsed and an epic struggle is underway to define what takes its place. Al-Qaeda-affiliated extremists are now on the march across the region. And with each passing day, Syria is becoming a failed state with possibly tons of chemical weapons and thousands of Al-Qaeda-backed fighters.
For all of the threats we face, the opportunities that exist in our world today are far, far greater. No one benefits more from America’s global leadership than Americans ourselves. That is why, for our own economic interests, we must seize the tremendous opportunities before us to expand free and open trade. For our own geopolitical interests, we must deepen the peace between the major powers of the world. And for our own national security interests, we must support friends and potential friends who want to embrace the cause of freedom and democracy.
I know some Americans want to pull back from the world right now. That’s a luxury we can’t afford. We are America. We can’t retreat into splendid isolation. We can’t withdraw from the world. We can’t escape its challenges. And we can’t afford to cut ourselves off from its opportunities. That is not what America does. America leads. And if we don’t lead, who will? How will that be better for us?
The last paragraph quoted above is actually the standard classic rhetoric used by American interventionists, suggesting that America has some higher purpose in what we do in the world. McCain says "We are America" and that "America leads." He claims that Republicans and other Americans are rejecting interventionism because of "mismanagement" and that they haven't done a good enough job of selling their globalist agenda to the American people. He seems to be in denial that it's the agenda itself that is the problem.
What McCain fails to realize is that Americans were already sold on that agenda during and just after World War II, and now, 70 years later, people are realizing that it was never really all that great to begin with. It's not as if this is some new idea that they're having trouble selling, but it's a very old idea which should have been scrapped a long time ago.
quote:
For all of these reasons, the Republican Party cannot afford to turn away from our proud traditions of internationalism. And let’s be clear what that means. Internationalism means active global leadership to shape events in the world to the benefit of our interests and values. It means maintaining a strong defense as the best way to prevent war. It means support for free trade. It means standing by our friends and allies and working to add to their ranks. And above all, it means recognizing that our interests are our values, and our values are our interests.
This kind of rhetoric might go over well with lobby groups, special interests, and think tanks, but will it play in Peoria with rank-and-file Republicans? Did it help Republicans in the last election? A lot of people seem to think that it was the religious right that killed the Republicans in the last election, but I don't think we should ignore the war-mongering globalist agenda which Republicans have championed for decades. It's wrecked our economy, destroyed our foreign policy, and ruined America's reputation in the world. And McCain is complaining that some people want to abandon that failed policy.
McCain is right in that the Republicans definitely have some soul-searching to do. Maybe he should start with himself.
quote:
I am a proud internationalist, but I recognize that an internationalist foreign policy is a tough sell in America today, especially among Republicans. And I get it. Americans are intensely war-weary. And they are tired of bearing the burdens of world leadership when our domestic and economic problems seem far more urgent.
This is leading to a broader political rebalancing. After the September 11 attacks, we embarked on an expansive foreign policy. Spending on defense and foreign assistance went up, and energy shifted to the President. Now things are changing. Americans want a foreign policy contraction. Our foreign assistance and defense budgets are on a steep decline. The desire to curb presidential power is growing, and the political momentum is shifting back toward the Congress.
America has gone through this kind of political rebalancing before, and much of the time we have gotten it wrong. That is how we got isolationism and disarmament after World War I. That is how we got a hollow army after Vietnam. And that is how we weakened our national security after the Cold War in the hope of cashing in on a peace dividend. We can’t afford to repeat these mistakes. We can’t afford to think the world will give us a holiday from history just because we are tired. We can’t assume the tide of war will recede just because we wish it so.
Again, this is the classic interventionist rhetoric which has justified much of our foreign policy since World War II, especially the criticism of isolationism and disarmament after World War I. I don't think that we "got it wrong," as McCain charges, since that implies that somehow America was responsible for the state of the world at that time. While I don't agree that America was actually "isolationist," our primary focus was on our own security and our own interests, while believing that other nations should handle their own affairs.
What McCain and others define as "isolationist," most other people would call it "minding our own business" - something that the rest of the world has repeatedly asked that America do.
McCain also says "We can’t afford to think the world will give us a holiday from history just because we are tired." But if, as McCain contends, America is supposed to lead, then why can't America declare a holiday and give ourselves and the rest of the world a break?
quote:
Right now, the political momentum among Republicans is with those who want to do less – who want to slash foreign aid, cut defense spending, pull back from the world, and constrain the President. These positions haven’t triumphed, but support for them is building. And that support will continue to build among Republicans if the only options they have are a status quo they don’t like – and the politically popular position to cut more, do less, and disengage from the world.
It's not just because they don't like it. They see what this status quo has been doing to America and the world as a whole.
It's not as if this is some new idea that people are resisting. It's not like these policies haven't been given support and a fair chance to succeed.
quote:
It is incumbent upon internationalists like me to offer my fellow Republicans, and my fellow Americans, a better alternative – to fashion a new Republican internationalism. That is what I want to speak about this afternoon.
This better alternative would begin with strengthening the domestic sources of our great power. Rebuilding America’s confidence and willingness to lead in the world must begin at home. This requires reforming our tax code, fixing our fiscal situation, and getting our economy growing robustly. It requires an aggressive free trade agenda, which we have not had in years.
The Republicans have been pushing this stuff since the Reagan years. It's that very same agenda which got us into this mess in the first place, and he's just trying to sell us more of the same. And he says we have not had it in years? We're neck deep in our aggressive free trade agenda.
quote:
It requires taking advantage of new technologies that could significantly boost America’s energy production. It requires the further economic integration of North America, which can enhance our global competitiveness. And of course, it requires comprehensive immigration reform, which a bipartisan group of my colleagues and I introduced yesterday.
McCain takes a lot of flak from some conservatives because he's seen as too soft on immigration. This is another issue which seems to divide Republicans, since pro-business Republicans have benefited from the ability to hire illegal immigrants at low wages and skirt around U.S. wage and employment laws.
I actually agree with McCain on this point, at least to some degree. But further economic integration of North America would require rebuilding the trust of our neighbors - something that has been neglected by our government for quite some time. I think that forming a regional power bloc in the Americas would make sense, as we would still be strong enough to be competitive and wield some influence over world affairs - but without an active interventionist policy.
I think there might be a happy medium between total isolationism and the aggressive internationalism which McCain is advocating (and which we've already been doing for over half a century).
quote:
And yet, Republicans are growing more divided on how to combat terrorism. Last month, most Republican Senators joined a filibuster to protest the President’s policies on the use of armed drones. Rather than debating the very real dilemmas associated with targeted killings, my colleagues chose to focus instead on the theoretical possibility that the President would use a drone to kill Americans on U.S. soil, even if they are not engaged in hostilities. As misguided as this exercise was, the political pressures on Republicans to join in were significant, and many ultimately did, including many who know better.
But what internationalists like me have to concede is that, while I believe my libertarian friends are wrong in how they wish to change our counterterrorism policy, they are responding to real flaws and uncertainties in that policy. This is why these critics, misguided though they are, now have the political initiative. And that’s why our current approach to counterterrorism is becoming unsustainable.
Not sure if McCain is correctly reading his "libertarian friends." They may be questioning the entire premise behind the policy, not just certain flaws and uncertainties. Americans' favorite pastime for as long as I can remember is discussing foreign policy. A great deal of national attention has been focused on that issue, and it ties in to so many other issues as well. I don't think it's misguided, though. We should think about what we do before we do it and not just take the politicians' word for it that they know what's best for us.
quote:
Republican internationalists have to take the lead in developing a better alternative. We need to put our counterterrorism policy on a new political and legal foundation in order to make it politically sustainable over the years to come. I believe this requires legislation. Since this conflict began, the Congress has at times enshrined in statute the principles and practices by which America will wage this war. We did this with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Acts of 2006 and 2009. Now the Congress must act again.
We need to update the Authorization for Use of Military Force that Congress passed on September 14, 2001 to account for the evolving threat we face. We need to enshrine in law the principles that must govern the conduct of this war, both by this President and his successors, especially on the use of armed drones. We need to preserve but clarify the Commander in Chief’s war powers, while insisting on greater transparency and broader congressional oversight of how these war powers are employed. In the coming weeks, I plan to work with a bipartisan group of my Senate colleagues to introduce legislation to achieve these and other goals.
Not sure if these goals constitute a "better alternative." Sounds like he's proposing more of the same of what we've already been doing - something which he himself called "unsustainable."
He then goes on to discuss the consequences of sequestration in the Defense Department.
quote:
But here, too, we have to acknowledge an inconvenient fact: Sequestration has occurred, in part, because a growing public frustration with the culture of waste and inefficiency at the Defense Department went unaddressed for too long. During my time in the Senate, I have witnessed the emergence of a military-industrial-congressional complex that has corrupted and crippled the defense acquisition process. This system can now be said to be successful only in one respect: turning billions of taxpayer dollars into weapons systems that are consistently delivered late, flawed, and vastly over budget – if, that is, these systems are delivered at all.
So he's in the Senate, witnessing all this stuff, and what has he done to stop it?
quote:
For example, there was the Expeditionary Combat Support System, which the Air Force had to cancel last year after wasting roughly $1 billion and receiving no combat capability. The Littoral Combat Ship already costs nearly twice as much per ship as planned. A recent study found that, from 2004 to 2010, cancelled programs consumed an average of 35-45 percent of the Army’s annual budget for development, testing, and engineering. The Joint Strike Fighter, which will become the first trillion-dollar weapon system in history, is being purchased before being tested, which drives up costs enormously. And the system is still not fully proven. These chronic cost overruns even extend to our military basing: The estimated cost of building the Futenma Replacement Facility on Guam had nearly tripled before the Senate Armed Services Committee effectively demanded an entirely new plan.
If Republican internationalists want to save our military from the sequester, and future sequesters, we will have to demand a lot more from the Defense Department. This means insisting that they ‘buy smart’ – focusing their limited resources on systems and services that promise a return on investment. It means ensuring that the DOD is as good at buying defense programs as industry is at selling them. It means encouraging real competition for contracts, setting realistic program goals, and managing them aggressively in ways that encourage innovation and productivity. It means making hard, unpopular choices to limit the spiraling growth of personnel and health care costs that are devouring the defense budget.
And when it comes to force posture, it means moving away from expensive permanent basing arrangements in favor of less costly rotational deployments, possibly co-located in host nation facilities. Absent real changes like these, public pressure will only build to cut defense more and more.
Well, I'd have to agreeing that buying smart sounds...smart. I can't really argue against what he's proposing here, but why didn't anyone (like McCain) think of "buying smart" before now?
Isn't that the same refrain from politicians on just about everything? "We were dumb before, but now, we're going to get smart!"
quote:
America will not be able to lend our voice to every struggle on behalf of human rights and democracy in the world. But that cannot be an argument for not lending it at all. That is not what I believe the brave souls across this world who still long for freedom and dignity want from America. I’ve spoken with many of them. I’ve met them in refugee camps and prisons, universities and polling places. They are still confident in us. They are still counting on us. They still have faith in America. What they want to know is whether America still has faith in itself.
From Teddy Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan, Republican internationalists have affirmed that the expansion of freedom, and democracy, and prosperity not only makes our world more just, but also more secure. We have affirmed that America must stand up for people who share our values because it is right – but also because we have an interest in seizing opportunities to make more friends and fewer enemies, and to shape conditions in the world that allow our citizens to live in peace and freedom at home. That is what Republicans must reaffirm now – for when our values are in retreat in the world, our interests are usually not safe either.
I am loyal Republican, and I care deeply about the future of my party. But the future of my country will always be more important. Right now, the far left and the far right in America are coming together in favor of pulling us back from the world. The President and I have had our differences. Many of those differences will persist. But there are times these days when I feel that I have more in common on foreign policy with President Obama than I do with some in my own party.
It is incumbent upon the internationalists in this country, both Republicans and Democrats, to join together to sustain America’s global leadership amid our current political realities. Republican internationalists must do our part. But we will never succeed without presidential leadership. We internationalists need the President to speak to the American people, to shape their thinking about the world, to explain why the benefits of our global leadership are worth the costs, and to help us sustain a bipartisan consensus in favor of a new American internationalism.
This should be a Republican goal. It should be a Democratic goal. And so long as I have the privilege and honor to serve my country, it will remain my goal.
Both the Democratic and Republican leadership have been pretty much on the same page on this issue, for the most part. They only differ by degrees, with the Democrats favoring negotiation and being more dovish, while the Republicans tend to be more hawkish. However, the basic premise behind the policy of interventionism remains basically the same. Even McCain is careful to not actually call the basic policy into question, except a few vague comments about "this is America" and "this is what America does," as if we have some sort God-given mandate to do what we do.
He also doesn't give much consideration to the opposition, those whom he refers to as "misguided," as if the problem is just due to a few flaws in the policy and not the policy itself. This is the kind of thinking that whirls around in the minds of our policymakers. He thinks the problem is that they just haven't sold the policy well enough to the people, that they're just these poor misguided simple folks who are tired and that he "gets it." Well, I don't think he gets it at all.
Who is "misguided" here anyway? McCain has been among the leaders in this country, so they're the ones who have been "guiding" us. McCain and others like him have been our guides, but where have they been guiding us? Only now they're starting to realize what a crappy job they've been doing?
|
McCain: "Republican Party has some soul-searching... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread