Is There a Palin Doctrine?

So too with her assessment of her prep work for her vice presidential debate with Joe Biden, a lion of the senate and former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. A spate of McCain advisors prepared her for the televised event, with Scheunemann and others providing her with note cards, briefing books, and canned answers on the most important topics. They also overloaded her with -- sigh! -- too much time in wardrobe, leaving her little time to study up on, say, the United States' two ongoing wars, or relations with friends like Europe and adversaries like Iran. Ultimately, the McCain advisors insisted that she not attempt to counter Biden or really debate him on substance at all, she writes.

These two passages mark Going Rogue's two real engagements with foreign policy, the sole prerogative of the executive and a responsibility of the vice president -- though Palin dismisses the subject as "certainly foreign to most governors." The book does delve into military and defense policy, though in a cursory and, at this point, shopworn manner. She mentions her son's service overseas and her interaction with Alaska troops a few times, for instance, as well as meetings with world leaders, glossed over in a paragraph. She also includes a single, dry 261-word passage on the September 11 attacks, the most crucial foreign-policy event of the past 20 years, explaining what she did that day, how Alaskan forces reacted, and how her family later volunteered at the site. (For contrast, a letter she pens in the voice of her son Trig's "creator" drags on for 623.)

Rather than admitting her campaign mistakes and showing some newfound heft, Palin defends her old foreign-policy canards. While denying that she ever said "I can see Russia from my house" (that was Fey), she reiterates her zany commentary on Russia's proximity to Alaska. She notes that some constituents "sent [her] photos of themselves standing on the Alaska shore with Russia visible over their shoulders" -- and lauds the "hard-core" athlete Lynne Cox who swam from one to the other across the Bering Strait in 1987. (Isn't that where they film The Deadliest Catch?)

It is not clear what this has to do with anything. At another point, she writes of trying to describe "frequent Russian incursions by figuratively referring to Vladimir Putin entering our airspace." Count me lost there. Since Alaska's founding as a state, there has never been a Russian incursion onto its land or into its airspace, figurative or literal, according to the U.S. Armed Forces.

Ultimately, Going Rogue goes rogue as a political memoir, demonstrating what can only be described as a persistent and guileless lack of knowledge of even basic foreign-policy or domestic political issues. It is what we might have expected from Palin. And it is much less than anyone should expect of a candidate for one of the most powerful offices on Earth.

PREVIOUS 12

Save over 50% when you subscribe to FP.

F1FAN

9:56 AM ET

November 19, 2009

Of Course There is a Palin Doctrine

'Put yourself in God's hands'

The doctrine of all radical Christian terrorists. Do nothing constructive, take no responsibility and attack everyone that does not share your moral values. It's the same mindless doctrine of Al Qaeda, a doctrine that allows people to fly planes into buildings or kill doctors that perform legal abortions.

CARDENAS697

10:56 AM ET

what Palin Doctrin?

I find it interesting that you “F1Fan” mention just Christian terrorist. I think you mean to say all terrorist organizations. I can’t remember any group conservative or liberal; democrat or republican that takes responsibility for their actions.

Sara Palin is just doing what she wants and “making money”. I am more concerned that elected officials like Joe Biden and others feel the need to comment on her remarks. Don’t they have a job to do like worry about our economy and health care.

12:25 PM ET

Well

Since we were talking about Palin, I didn't think it was necessary to point out all stripes of religious fanatics, just her type.

I also wanted to pint out, like most fundamentalist Christians, she uses her religion as a justification for not taking responsibility for her actions. I just didn't think it was appropriate to write a diatribe about all colors of political denial.

I understand your point.

MOHAIR.SAM

9:25 AM ET

November 20, 2009

Christian terrorists?

And where might we find those, F1, in 2009? As for your other charges, both religious and nonreligious organizations try to enforce their moral views on everyone else. There is no such thing as a morally neutral position, contrary to your implied default. This is called politics, and no one is innocent. You, however, are blind to your own tendencies (and those of other secularists, who love to delude themselves about their intentions).

For the record, I couldn't care less about Sarah Palin, and I certainly did not (and would not) vote for her. It is amusing to me, however, to witness the witless froth those who hate her can work up--much like the GOP over Hillary Clinton, in years past (and sometimes even now). Watching people come unglued over their political opponents is always entertaining.

WARRIORSOUL

11:04 AM ET

November 22, 2009

"And where might we find those, F1, in 2009?"

Probably out hunting abortion doctors.

PENNFLYER

10:08 AM ET

November 28, 2009

Sarah vs Hillary

get real. Palin is opportunistically feeding an appetite for demagoguery and ignorance, and her critics are merely lamenting that fact, although with occasional over-annoyance. She actually gives credence to running with Glenn Beck!! Meanwhile, Hillary was and is a real player of influence. What kind of person can actually compare the effects these two have had on our public life? What are you drinking?

PAMPL

11:41 AM ET

"September 11 attacks, the

"September 11 attacks, the most crucial foreign-policy event of the past 20 years"
Really? Not the Velvet Revolution? Or the NATO interventions that tried to define a "New World Order" by halting an invasion and a genocide? Or the rebellion in Goma that cause the Second Congo War?

KMOODY

12:09 PM ET

Yes really.

No seriously, the attacks on Sept. 11 certainly were the most crucial foreign-policy event in the past 20 years.

3:14 PM ET

Nope

As long as we're just asserting things without offering any reasoning or substance: no, you're wrong, they really aren't

A BALANCED VIEW

11:03 PM ET

Inspiring 2 (what will be )

Inspiring 2 (what will be ) decades long, mostly pointless wars.

Causing the complete retooling of the US intelligence community.

Informing US foreign policy in general (even now) for a decade and surely decades after.

Causing the formation of Homeland Security, and the MASSIVE expenditures that accompanied it.

The aftermath of which may change the standing of the US in the world, if we allowed to run ourselves into the ground with MORE pointless wars in Iran and continue taking the blow back terror that our blind support of Israeli ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories has already helped to bring to our shores.

Yes. I would say that it dwarfs the other example you mentioned.

9:35 AM ET

I beg to differ

The Velvet Revolution was important to the Czech Republic .... and that's about it. Within the context of the '89 collapse, yes, I could certainly see the entire fall of the Iron Curtain as rivaling 9/11, but only in that context. NATO intervention in Kuwait saved a tiny, oil-rich emmirate that has a minimal role in the global oil market; Saddam would've sold us Kuwaiti oil as readily as he sold us Iraqi oil. Assuming you're referring to the Balkans vis-a-vis "genocide," there was no genocide to be halted (war crimes, yes, but 5,000 dead Kosovars does not a genocide make, and ethnic cleansing is something all sides in that war were/are guilty of). Complete fabrication by the internationalist press, as has been well documented. The Congo is always in a state of war or near-war; coups and rebellions are barely newsworthy, except for new lows in human cruelty that seem to emerge every couple of years. None of these come close to the impact 9/11 had on world events.

JORELMANHATTAN

3:29 PM ET

Policy

Certainly we are talking US Foreign Policy. Certainly those other events have their place in history, but are NOT EVEN CLOSE to the first attack on US soil for over fifty years. The repercussions are global(not so the Velvet Revolution)and will affect economies and diplomacy for years. That attack has caused massive upheaval in the Mideast(through our radicalized "in response" foreign policy). This has led to a Shia revival in the region which will change the relationship of Muslims to other Muslims and their relations with everyone. You would be hard pressed to find anyone, anywhere, who did not recognize 9/11 as the greatest agent for change in not only US foreign policy, but the policies of so many other countries. Nice try...

3:31 PM ET

Evidence?

I do not hear you offering evidence to the contrary, my friend. And you are the one making a case against most everyone else.

10:26 AM ET

velvet revolution?

The end of the Soviet Union is FAR bigger than 9/11--it's absurd beyond comprehension that anyone argues this. What are you snorting? 9/11 is merely one of the many after-effects of the Soviet collapse, as predicted at the time: an example of the reversion into religious and ethno-national conflicts that came and will continue to come with the collapse of the great animating ideology of Communism. How idiotic and self-centered to think that 9/11 could possibly be more influential than this great setback to Marxism's most powerfully championed physical manifestation thus far. 9/11 is a clumsy re-enactment of 13th century crusading by a handful of alienated cavemen sociopaths. Sure, it was jarring--but greater than the collapse of the Soviet Empire? the liberation of 100 million Europeans and their tentative but nevertheless stable-enough integration into Western structures? the further elevation of American hegemony and eminence that followed it, for the last 20 years? again: WHAT???

MAROCI

2:15 PM ET

Your pocket protector is

Your pocket protector is showing. By the past 20 years he pretty clearly meant since the collapse of the USSR, thought the timing isn't exactly right. News flash for you: people tend to use round numbers imprecisely.

KUNINO

12:20 PM ET

Palin handed out a message nobody seems to noticed

The lesson is about how fatuous presidential politics are. We now know that John McCain did not win last year's election but that outcome wasn't all that certain when the senator and those around him decided to hand the Alaskan governor the potential veephood with a good deal less thought than women of fashion used to expend on choosing a spring hat. It was a decision taken by trivial minds, seemingly the counsel of despair

This was simply an extreme example of what the nation proves with metronomic regularity each four years: presidential campaigns are never between the two Americans best qualified to occupy the position.

Possibly the most recent such campaign was between JFK and RMN in 1960, or earlier between Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson. In 2008, And possibly one must go back an entire century further. It's not even clear that either the Democratic or Republican party ever chooses the representative best-qualified to seek the top job. Some 2006 candidates were downright crackpots: check on YouTube, listen to Huckabee telling an attentive audience that Americans are the only people in the known universe who care about humanity. Or possibly, that's just republicans, he doesn't make his point all that clearly bin Laden never sounded weirder.

In the present season, the leadership of Barack Obama is much under public challenge. But notice how nobody seems to be suggesting that if John McCain had won, things would be much better. The Republican candidate's eccentric conduct in the closing stages of the campaign, when he actually walked out on it for some days to little potential and no actual gain for him or the nation, vividly displayed the traditional one-and-a-half candidates tradition in full flower. The selection of Governor Palin was only part of the craziness. We now await the 2012 craziness, regardless of whether the former governor will be part of it, or not.

I don't plan to read the Palin book. In it, did she ever express or discuss the idea that choosing her as Republican candidate for the Vice-Presidency of the United States was a bad idea? My guess is that she didn't.

AMA2002

12:54 PM ET

Republicans don't care about Wisdom

Dear Ms. Lowrey:

I agree with your analysis of Palin's persistent and guileless lack of knowledge of even basic foreign-policy or domestic political issues.

Never forget though, the Republican party's propensity to nominate numbnuts for the presidency of the United States. We've seen this story before. Just try to convince me that Reagan, Bush I or Bush II had any knowledge on even basic foreign-policy or domestic political issues.

The Republicans don't want that, they would rather manipulate the presidency and you have to give them credit for keeping the party line.

It starts out the same, each and every time, the presidential SPEAK begins; The president has spoken, the president meant this, the president meant that, the president is keeping us safe, the president is strong and decisive, on and on and on and on..............

MARK SEIGLER

1:45 PM ET

Really?

So a platform of limited governance and fiscal conservatism isn't wise? Hmmm. GW Bush doesn't represent all Republicans just as Senator Al Frankin doesn't represent all Democrats. As I look back at the foreign policy neophytes Democrats have elected to office, you don't have much of an argument for your "side" either. But, let's take Bush 1 for "knowledge on even basic foreign-policy or domestic political issues" before elected to the U.S. Presidency : Vice President from 1981-1989, Yale graduate, Founded his own oil production company, House Representative appointed to the Ways and Means committee, UN Ambassador, Chief of the US Liaison Office in the People's Republic of China, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Director of the Council on Foreign Relations, part time professor at Rice University, WWII vet with Distinguished Flying Cross, three Air Medals, and the Presidential Unit Citation.

Now. . . Let's compare that to Obama's pre-elected domestic and foreign policy experience. . . Harvard grad, Senate Committees for Foreign Relations; Homeland Security; Veterans Affairs; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, for 2 years with a very nebulous voting record. Am I missing something or did you mean to say that the numbnut is the one CURRENTLY in office?

1:01 PM ET

Ready for office?

CNN came out with a poll of Americans on several people's readiness to be president. One stat that wasn't shocking was that only 38% of Americans believe Palin ready to be president. What was shocking was the fact that only 50% of Americans believed Biden to be ready for the Oval office. Clearly, Biden's 35 years as a force in the Senate, with important positions on the Judiciary and Foreign Relations Com, just isn't enough for half of Americans, but will win over the 12% gap between Palin's experience and Biden's experience. As many have pointed out, Palin is not much more informed that a Robo-call unable to deviat from the script laid in front of her. Taxes bad, freedom good. Government bad, but I want to be in charge, but for the good. Nevermind that eight years of Republican policies and here we are. Personally, I wanted the campaign to be (again) two old white guys running against each other--Biden and McCain. Hillary as Veep with her focus on health care, and Biden running the show on foreign policy. McCain's problem is that he was not crazy and is uncomforable talking to the crazies. Even listening to him during the campaign you could tell he never really believed what he was saying. McCain's veep choice is a little more difficult, although it seems someone in the House woulda been a good choice, and clearly Palin was a nail in the coffin. How that decision was made I don't think we will know for a LONG time. Props to McCain though, he is still grinding away in the Senate rather than falling off the face of the Earth for a bit. And, God bless him, working in a bipartisan manner and working to cut govt waste that even Obama called for. There is a story that the NYT has several reporters fact checking the book. For what only God knows. I don't really care since it seems from the review that most of it is not fact check worthy--except for an explanation of what exactly she means with the airspace situation? This is a bit longwinded and roundabout, but I think in the end what we came out with was two tickets of wildly contrasting resumes. Each had a candidate with mounds of experience, and one with little to nothing to show as far as achievements. It is interesting to note that, like Palin, Obama is a total celebrity. He became popular after he aroused the Democratic base with his speeches--despite little to show for his efforts as far as legislation, and no foreign policy experience. The difference between Obama and Palin is that Obama seems to have a much better understanding and much more serious dialouge of the issues. Perhaps this is what McCain thought he was getting--someone who could arouse the Republican base with a strong, unabashedly republican argument and recognizable and small town feel face, but also knew the facts of what was going on and able to actually debate these traditional views of governance. Unfortunately for McCain, and politics in general, Americans only got the former. It would have been very interesting if Palin turned out to be something of a Ron Paul, who is level headed, understands his political positions, engages in debate, and actually makes sense on many issues (ahem, cutting back on foreign military bases). Palin was ticked that the media focused so much on shenanigans like her wardrobe and family--but she left little to discuss by means of policy.

2:08 PM ET

What McCain thought he was

What McCain thought he was getting is pretty obvious, actually. In decreasing order of significance: someone young and charismatic who could generate some excitement for his stagnant campaign, someone who would appeal to the conservative base, and maybe someone who could pick off some female voters, especially ones still upset with the Democrats for Hillary's loss. But he was careless, even reckless with the selection.

11:11 PM ET

OK, I'll bite. OF COURSE

OK, I'll bite.

OF COURSE there's a Palin doctrine.

Its "about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy– Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions."

could that be any clearer?

DEAN ACHESON

5:14 AM ET

November 23, 2009

The facts disagree with you Ms Lowrey re Russian incursions

From the Washington Times, June 2008:

By Rowan Scarborough

Russian bombers have stepped up provocative flight exercises off the Alaskan coast, reminiscent of Cold War incursions designed to rattle U.S. air defenses.

U.S. Northern Command, which protects North American airspace, told The Washington Times that TU-95 Bear bombers on 18 occasions the past year have skirted a 12-mile air defense identification zone that protects Alaska. The incursions prompted F-15s and F-22 Raptor fighters to scramble from Elmendorf Air Force Base and intercept the warplanes. The last incident happened in May.

The venerable propeller-driven TU-95 came to symbolize the Cold War, as did its counterpart, the U.S. B-52 Stratofortress.

"They have flown close enough to deem it necessary to ID and monitor them," said Maj. Allen Herritage, a base spokesman. "They come. We ID. We go back to our base. They go back to their base." Elmendorf is headquarters for the Alaskan region of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

Air defense identification zones are military boundaries designed to guard the U.S. and Canada against attack. To enter the zones legally, pilots must file flight plans with air controllers. Russian bombers do not file flight plans, so U.S. and Canadian jets are required to scramble to identify the planes and warn them away from the area.

"They have not been filing a flight plan and that is the problem," Maj. Herritage said

and from CBS News in Sept, 2008:
“Russian incursions near Alaskan airspace and inside the air defense identification zone have occurred,” a McCain campaign spokesperson told CBS News. “When they do, Governor Palin is briefed on them by the Adjutant General of the Alaska National Guard. U.S Air Force fighters have been scrambled repeatedly in response to Russian actions. After September 11, 2001, U.S. tolerance for such activities is understandably low.”

Captain Guy Hayes, an Alaska National Guard Public Affairs Officer, confirmed that Palin has received such briefings from Adjutant General Craig E. Campbell on Russian plane incursions.

“Guardsmen do work in the section that patrols the air over Alaska,” Hayes added.

It may sound like a cat and mouse game more reminiscent of the Cold War than the post-9/11 world, but Russian bombers have recently engaged in exercises in which they have flown provocatively close to Alaskan airspace.

Just two examples. There are plenty more.

Seems like Putin was sending his Bears out, repeatedly. US jets were scrambled. The military confirmed it. Even CBS admitted it. I guess you'll be apologizing to her any time now.

As for the Palin Doctrine, you'll get that in the next book. Can't divulge it all at once. Always leave them wanting more.

I have a feeling it won't be the Obama Doctrine of twiddling your thumbs for 4 months after your handpicked commander sounds an urgent need for help. Of getting totally rebuffed by Tehran and having your attempts at getting Mscow and Beijing on board with sanction go down faster than your approval ratings. Of trying to talk tough with Israel and then humiliatingly retreating. Of calling trusted allies in Warsaw and Prague in the middle of the night to let them know you're selling them out. Of bowing down to the Emperor of Japan. Of talking tough on Darfur and then completely ignoring the issue. Of coddling up with a Chavez wannabe in Tegucigalpa.

Just what is the Obama Doctrine, Ms Lowrey?

PETER H. CHRISTIANSEN

9:10 PM ET

Palin Could Dig Deeper

Too bad for the Republicans that ex-Governor Palin is too lazy to dig into the facts. She could have made a decent case that Alaska is critical to US foreign policy now, and that it will become even more important over the next 20 years. There are 3 important things happening now in the 49th state regarding Russia:

1. Climate change opening the Arctic to resource exploitation. Russia will not be restrained in its exploitation of oil, natural gas, fisheries and minerals in the Arctic basin unless the US takes the lead. On the table: environmental protection and economic opportunities.

2. Climate change is opening the Arctic to cargo navigation. Alaska is a natural logistics hub for a USWC to N Europe shipping line, supporting resource development.

3. Russia and Alaska already conduct joint rescue operations in the Bering and Chukchi Seas (USCG and Russian Navy); they control together fishing activity across the Bering Sea (pollock and salmon, worth billions each year to the US and Russia); and they jointly manage marine mammals. All of this happens against the backdrop of continued military readiness on both sides, demonstrating that it is possible to cooperate with Russia on certain issues, while competing on others.

What is astounding to me is that ex-Governor Palin misses all of this, despite living in Alaska her whole life. Other ties to Russia include, of course, the history of colonization; the Christianization of native peoples by the Russian Orthodox Church (still important today); a large population of Russian emigres (scholars, mail order brides, businessmen)....you really have to not pay attention to notice this stuff.