Rand Paul’s efforts to establish foreign policy credentials in advance of a likely 2016 presidential campaign escalated yesterday with a major speech at the Heritage Foundation in which he sought to claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan. Paul defined himself as being neither an isolationist like his extremist father Ron nor a neoconservative. He hopes that this address, like his recent trip to Israel, will make it clear that he cannot be dismissed as an outlier on defense and security matters. But his campaign to cast himself as the second coming of Reagan is not believable. Judging by his remarks, his real role models are Cold War containment strategist George Kennan and James Baker, secretary of state under the first President Bush whose “realist” policies did little to prepare the country for the post-Soviet world or the threat from Islamist terror.
Unlike Baker, who made little secret of his contempt for Israel, Paul is being very careful these days to give the Jewish state some love even though his position on aid to it misses the point about its strategic dilemma. But on the most important issue facing Israel—the Iranian nuclear threat—Paul placed himself clearly outside of the mainstream. The key takeaway from the speech was that the Kentucky senator wants to put containment of a nuclear Iran back on the table. Though he tries to couch this in terms that make it seem as if he is being a tough advocate of a true conservative foreign policy, he has put himself even to the left of Barack Obama on Iran.
Paul’s premise is that the U.S. should be unpredictable, but by raising doubts as to whether the Iranians should fear a military action to prevent them from gaining nuclear capability, he is actually telegraphing exactly what he would do about this threat if he were president: nothing. Though he tells us he doesn’t want Iran to go nuclear, his primary objective is to avoid any foreign military entanglements, even those, like Iran, that wouldn’t necessarily involve boots on the ground or a long-term land war. As such, all this talk from him about considering containment is merely an excuse for ignoring a problem that threatens to destabilize the entire Middle East, undermine Western security, and pose an existential threat to the state of Israel.
The senator’s attempt to claim that Israelis are having a debate about Iran that Americans are not also misunderstands what is happening in Israel. It is true that some former intelligence officials there have criticized the Netanyahu government on Iran. But their disagreement is not about whether Iran should be contained but whether Israel can or should act on its own. There is little dissent there about the idea that the U.S. should act to stop Iran, and it is on that point that Paul would like to inject some ambiguity rather than the certainty that is needed if Iran is ever to step back from the nuclear brink.
Just as important as this potential blunder is his misapplication of Kennan’s containment ideas to the conflict with radical Islamists. Kennan’s idea worked to some extent because the two superpowers of the postwar era were prevented by the existence of nuclear weapons from engaging in a traditional direct war against each other. Containment allowed the U.S. to try, not always successfully, to prevent the spread of Communism around the globe without triggering World War III. If, in the end, the West prevailed it was because its efforts to combat Soviet expansionism and its raising of the ante in the arms race made it clear to the Russians they couldn’t win. But the current struggle with the Islamists is nothing like that. Neither the Iranians nor their terrorist auxiliaries and allies can be counted on to behave with the relative restraint exercised by Moscow.
Paul’s call for an unpredictable American policy in which force could potentially be used in some situations and not in others misunderstands the lessons of containment. Though some of the U.S. responses to Communist encroachment, like Vietnam, didn’t turn out well, the results from American decisions not to respond in Africa and Asia were just as disastrous and encouraged further trouble. Though Reagan did not try to liberate captive peoples, a strategy that he derided as unrealistic, he also made sure that the Soviets were resisted everywhere. The long-term impact of these interventions–such as U.S. support to the resistance in Afghanistan–was unfortunate, but allowing them a free hand there would not have advanced American security and might have put off the date of Soviet collapse.
Paul says he wants a strategy to deal with our foes that does not appease them. Some of his instincts on this topic are right, such as his vote against the sale of F-16 aircraft to the Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt as well as his general opposition to providing arms to Arab countries that might use them against our ally Israel. But an America that disengages from the Middle East in the way that he envisions and which signals, as he would, that it may tolerate a nuclear Iran, is just as dangerous as appeasement. The only thing about this that is credible is his dedication to avoiding war. Everything else in his vision is merely a rationalization for the principle of non-intervention no matter how grievous the consequences of that stand might be.
The path that he would chart for the country is not a middle way between certain war and appeasement. It is, at best, a charter that would enable Iran to assume regional hegemony without having to worry much about U.S. force and a threatened Israel. At worst, it is a blueprint for American decline that will make the world a much more dangerous place.
Though his speech demonstrates a certain grasp of history and the desire of Americans to avoid replays of Iraq and Afghanistan, when the elements are boiled down to their essentials, it must be seen as merely a sophisticated gloss on the libertarian ideas that his father presented in a much more primitive manner. His call for what he thinks is a Reagan-like constraint abroad is merely an excuse to reduce defense spending and to refuse to engage in conflicts that cannot be wished away.
As wrongheaded as this foreign policy manifest may be, it is a good deal more presentable than Ron Paul’s woolly isolationism and thus will make his quest for the GOP presidential nomination more viable. But it should also end the brief flirtation with the senator that some in the pro-Israel community have been engaging in since November. Paul’s desire to put containment of Iran back on the table is a refreshing change from Chuck Hagel’s inability to articulate the administration’s nominal stand. The administration’s stand on Iran has been all rhetoric and no action so far, but even that is better than what Paul has proposed. Anyone looking to Rand Paul for a fresh Republican face that can put forward a sensible foreign policy strategy needs to keep looking.
"Unlike Baker, who made little secret of his contempt for Israel" n nDid he really? I am not a fan of James Baker—but his infamous comment would probably be ignored had he been a Democrat saying something similar about Jews going to vote Republican anyway. The man was frustrated, but still told the truth. American Jews unfortunately have a terrible reputation of treating Republicans unfairly. Richard Nixon, for instance, courageous helped israel. What did he ever get for it? n n n
Personally I thought the comparison to Jim Baker is way off the mark. Jim Baker may have been in the "realist" camp but he was also a complete Arabist and anti-semite. Can you really say that about Rand Paul, who met with Naftali Bennett in Israel and wants to cut off arms supplies to Israel's enemies? Don't think so.
I agree with you. The thing is by 2016 containment may be the only option left open. The fact is Obama is the president today and he is all talk when it comes to Iran. Hell, he wants to slash the defense budget! He will not act. Whatever happens in the future is out of Rand Paul's hands and what his policy might be today may, if Obama continues to do nothing, seem very reasonable. Obama is the problem here, not Rand Paul. And the clock is ticking.
"Paul’s desire to put containment of Iran back on the table is a refreshing change from Chuck Hagel’s inability to articulate the administration’s nominal stand." Huh?! Hagel characterized our policy vis-a-vis Iran as "containment" and had to be slipped a note by one of his handlers telling him that wasn't our policy, after which he corrected himself. With nuclear weapons and rocket systems to deliver them, Iran will be very much uncontainable, so they must be denied nuclear weapons, as Obama has pledged to do. n nAs for Hagel's "inability to articulate the administration's nominal stand," not the sort of thing to give confidence in Hagel, is it?
Depends how you define isolationist. Also would it have been so bad if we didn't go into Beirut, Panama, Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia? My guess is, using his criteria, the first gulf war may have been something he would have been for, as we were defending our key allies against invasion (note his comment about an attack on israel by iran would be equivalent to an attack on the US). Grenada may have as well as the 1986 Libya bombing. n nI was for the war in Iraq personally but in the end I misjudged how political correctness and the Democratic Party could turn a victory into a defeat. Same is true for Afghanistan. Relative non-interventionism may be a better idea in the future. I've come to the conclusion that you can't just think of the needs of today, you need to consider what will happen when complete idiots win an election and what do they do to those tools. I was much more comfortable with the Patriot act under Bush/Cheney, as I was with their military endeavors. Simply because they were looking to do the right thing, I dont think Obama even knows what that is.
If Paul would have done what Bush Sr. did after Saddam invaded Kuwait, or intervened on any occasion other than Afghanistan in the course of the past 40 years, then why didn't he say that when asked specifically to name those interventions he would have supported? Why should it be a matter of guessing how he would have responded? n nAs for Bosnia, yes it would have been bad if we did not act to call a halt to what was going on there. It's too bad we didn't act sooner in concert with the Europeans to stop the slaughter, which saw so many innocents killed, so many made refugees, and a magnet for Islamic "freedom fighters" created. Rand Paul would have done nothing under the circumstances? And he approved of the nothing that we did under Clinton in Rwanda to stop the horrific genocide there?
What was our interest in Bosnia? None. And given we are in a battle with radical islam today, maybe we shouldn't have intervened on the Bosnian muslims side then. The muslim world gave us zero credit for it and Im sure some of our funding went to train people who are terrorists today.
but the article argues against specifically containing an Iranian state that is permitted to get nuclear weapons–beyond Iran, the prescription for non-containment of radical Islamists in paragraph 5 and afterwards is all generality n nspot on re Reagan. In Grenada he showed he could take on golf course green keeper crews. But Lebanon, sadly, wasn't humanitarian. It was in support of the balance of power temporarily reconfigured by Sharon in the 1982 war–Israel itself disengaged from its Chrisitan allies shortly therafter.
The only person alive today who could be the next Kennan is Ryan Crocker, in that Crocker must be as familiar with Islam as Kennan was about Stalin's Soviet Union. n nI always thought one of the biggest problems with Bush43's team was that they were mostly Russia specialists, and there is no way you can understand Imperial Islam via Russia. n nRand Paul should have saved Big Speech on Foreign Policy for 2014. n This endless campaign is destructive, and
It's entertaining and delightful to watch you neoconservatives shake in your boots. Your era is coming to an end. Good riddance, Trotskyites!
Trotskyites?! WTF are you talking about?
Like it or not, it would surprise me if the Obama Administration would take military action against Iran. Obama won the election which would seem to say that containing Iran is not out of the mainstream policy. Most voters seem to support it. Jewish voters voted about 80 % for Obama's policies so I would have to think Jonathan Tobin is out of mainstream. That is not to say he is wrong. However, it is highly likely that Iran will get nuclear weapons. Who will stop Iran?
It might be surprising, but not for the reasons you adduce. Obama has said repeatedly that he will not allow Iran to build a nuclear bomb and that he has ruled out no options, meaning or implying military among them, to stop them from doing it. So he may be disingenuous in saying that, and his nomination of Hagel to be Secretary of Defense speaks for disingenuity, but he didn't campaign on any abjural of military action against Iran.
My point was that Sen. Rand Paul and President Barack Obama share a view and that view is mainstream given that Barack Obama won the election which, I conclude, means he is acceptable to a majority and mainstream. I was contradicting Jonathan Tobin's point that Rand Paul is out of the mainstream. Rand Paul is no more out of the mainstream than Barack Obama. n nRand Paul comes from the perspective of CATO Libertarian Constitutional Limited Government perspective. To Libertarians, the driver of Big Government, Statism, is war and the military infrastructure needed for war, the military industrial complex, and he has a point. Historically, Woodrow Wilson's entry into WW1 set the stage for a qualitatively more centralized government which persists to this day. n nBarack Obama comes to same result from a different perspective, that is, the view that the best government is the European Welfare Statist model. n n75% of Israel's foreign aid is spent in the US on military weapons produced by US arms manufacturers. n nThe price for Israel aid is support for aid for all other foreign aid. Rand Paul's point is that Israel has a Qualitative Military Edge and that edge can be retained by giving Israel and its enemies aid or by giving neither aid. Giving Israel aid and giving its ( and our) enemies aid can only lead to more violence with better weapons. Less aid and fewer weapons to Israel's enemies is helpful to US and to Israel. n nWoodrow Wilson campaigned on platform on keeping US out of European War until he changed his mind. Politicians change their minds. Barack Obama may conclude that military intervention is necessary to stop Iran. On the other hand, pre war Britain did not listen to Winston Churchill when he pointed out Hitler's Germany re arming just as his own party was advocating disarmament. and then…. fyi,Winston Churchill said a lot more about Jews in Germany than the American president and, I think, even American Jewish leadership. n nOnly HaShem knows; the rest of us worry a lot.
I think it would come as a great surprise to both Rand Paul and Obama to hear that however they come to their foreign policy views, those views, at least in practical/operational terms, are remarkably close, maybe even identical. You will agree, won't you, that Obama has never expressed views much like Rand Paul's, especially not on the campaign stump while trying to get as many votes as he possibly could. n nBut tell us, if you will, how the foreign policy views of Rand Paul differ from those of Ron Paul, if they do. n n
Jonathan Tobin's point was that Rand Paul's policy positions are outside the mainstream. n nHow does Sen. Rand Paul's foreign policies differ from President Barach Obama's. n nNot much, it seems to be. But I don't know everything so please tell me the significant differences.
I believe this will be the issue in 2016. n nMedical Marijuana prohibition is a crime against humanity and a violation of the religious precept – heal the sick. CB1 CB2 n nHe is the only Republican capable of dealing with it. Given his recent speech on Islam I'm confident that if he gets in office reality will prevail. Just as has happened to some extent with Obama.
You're right in the sense that one cannot demolish that which doesn't already exist, and in the case of Rand Paul that is anything like a sane foreign policy perspective. n nAnd yes, Rand Paul, like his father, has a bunch of isolationist followers. No disputing that. (BTW, how do you imagine that he came to have those followers if he has not talked the talk of an isolationist all along? Or do you think it has just been disingenuity on his part, since in truth he has been a closeted mainstreamer on foreign policy?) n nAnyway, given your notion of what will be "the top issue of 2016," you are not to be taken seriously.
I did not see any demolishing either. n nWhat is Robert Kagan's view on arming the Egyptians with F-16s and Abrams tanks?
Reagan's "restraint" in the Middle East, arguably, set in motion the spread of Islamic terrorism we are living with today. His foreign policy was mostly about stopping the spread of communism to Latin America (Salvador, Grenada, Nicaragua, etc.) and bringing down the Soviet Union. n nHe also, commendably and honorably, stood with the British during the Falklands War, something Obama would never have done! But Reagan cut and ran in Beirut, and he acted stupidly during the Iran-Contra episode. He opened the door to contempt for America's military might by the Arabs and Iranians, and this is never a good idea re: the Middle East, where tribalism still defines the overall order. n nThe increased danger we face in the world today is also a function of America's tattered and torn alliances, as much as it is of China's expansionist intentions and Islam's vicious play against civilization itself. What nation today is foolish enough to trust America as its long-term ally and friend? Even Japan and South Korea, the two pillars of our Pacific alliance, must be wondering what to do next, whether to cut the best deal they can with the Chinese, or to hang-in with us and risk becoming the latest victims in a seemingly endless string of American betrayals. n nIt seems our form of government, which is highly contentious and was set-up to resist the rule of a permanent bureaucracy in both military and foreign affairs, predisposes the US to resist those "foreign entanglements" we are continually warned against. n nAs it happens, avoiding them is probably great advice, given our geography and the power we wield. We don't need to get "entangled" in the violence men do to one another, unless they force our hand—e.g., on December 7, 1941 and 9/11/01. We're at our best when we provide a "shining example" of how imperfect human beings strive, imperfectly, for perfection! n nBut what about Israel? Should the US stand with the Jewish state against the Arabs and Iranians (and the Europeans)? I believe we should, unquestionably. However, the debate regarding that commitment should be open and ongoing, rather than relegated to the status of an unwavering, untouchable "third rail" of American foreign and strategic policy. n nAt least, Israelis must be told what we expect of them—re: participating in our mutual defense. For instance, in July-August 2006, Israel attacked Hezbollah, and the Bush administration had every right to expect that the much-touted IDF would finish the job. We were bogged down in Iraq at that moment, with large numbers of our soldiers being killed weekly by IEDs and in ambushes by Islamic and Fatah guerrillas, both being supplied and trained by the Iranians. Imagine what a victory by Israel against Iran's principal terror-force in the region would have done for our morale—and to Iran's! nIt would have also put Syria on notice, that letting Iran use it as a conduit for fighters and materiel had "consequences." n nOne cannot know yet what was said to Israel's leaders after the 2006 debacle, and it is well to recall that Bush's friendship with Olmert (one of the worst leaders, of any country, in all human history!) seemed solid enough in the aftermath. Yet, the point had been made by the Israelis—-that our alliance with them was a one-sided. What were all the weapons and aid for, if not to fight by America's side when called? What kind of friendship is it, when a large, generous nation cannot depend on its single-most important friend in a dangerous part of the world? And what about Ehud Olmert's having being permitted to remain as PM for an additional 30 months after the 2006 war. What message did that send to our nation—and to others—that Israel could flout its indifference to our interests whenever it felt like it? And, can we even imagine what it was like from then on, whenever the world's presidents and prime ministers sat face-to-face with Olmert, essentially a buffoon and a liar? Who can overestimate the damage this serious mistake cost Israel, in terms of its "image" and how such a shameful episode served to encourage Europe's Left to ratchet-up their anti-Semitic outbursts? n nIsrael must cease to be America's "entanglement." As we say, "with great opportunities come great responsibilities." Israel must stop thinking of itself as America's "client" and must become our "friend," our "ally," and it must never again fail us, the way it did when it failed to eliminate Hezbollah in 2006. n nIf Israelis want Americans to have their backs, then we demand the same of them. In other words, Israelis must grow up, finally, and stop thinking of themselves as an aggrieved, misunderstood, maligned people. In fact, Israel is a dangerously powerful nation—and it is our ally, along with Japan and South Korea, and Britain. With friends like these, the United States can afford to have enemies.
We will leave alone your remarkable contention that Israel let the US down when it didn't "eliminate" Hezbollah in 2006, willfully "flout(ing) its indifference to our interests." We will just ask if you can point to any serious commenters who would maintain that along with you, that is that Israel could have "eliminated" Hezbollah at the time but chose not to. (If Israel could have accomplished that, why do you imagine they elected not to do so?) n n"The increased danger we face in the world today is also a function of America's tattered and torn alliances, as much as it is of China's expansionist intentions and Islam's vicious play against civilization itself. What nation today is foolish enough to trust America as its long-term ally and friend? Even Japan and South Korea, the two pillars of our Pacific alliance, must be wondering what to do next, whether to cut the best deal they can with the Chinese, or to hang-in with us and risk becoming the latest victims in a seemingly endless string of American betrayals." Which of our allies do you think we have so seriously let down, failing to do what they could reasonably could have expected of us? Do you think allies of ours other than Israel have seriously let us down at different times, and if so, who, when, where, and how? (Let's stick to modern times, say over the course of the last three decades.)