It's Evening in America

At the first GOP presidential debate, the Bush-era neoconservative movement seemed as good as dead.

BY MICHAEL A. COHEN | JUNE 14, 2011

When most of us hear "George W. Bush" and "foreign policy" in the same sentence today, the word that most quickly comes to mind is "neoconservative" (well, perhaps after "ill-fated"). Yet, when Bush first ran for president in 2000, his foreign-policy agenda was something else altogether. He bemoaned Clinton-era nation-building and pledged to focus as president on promoting a more "modest" foreign policy. His chief foreign-policy advisor, Condoleezza Rice, even wrote a lengthy realpolitik tract for Foreign Affairs magazine titled "Campaign 2000: Promoting the National Interest."

Of course, as we now know, that talk barely survived the campaign trail. As president, Bush's embrace of neoconservatism came to define not only his foreign-policy vision, but also the foreign-policy vision of the Republican Party. So it's perhaps a bit of a surprise that on Monday, June 13, at the first Republican primary debate, the protagonists seemed to channel not President Bush, but instead candidate Bush.

Republican realism made an unexpected comeback at the debate as the GOP field sought to offer an alternative to President Barack Obama's military escalations amid growing public concerns about the costs of U.S. global leadership. If anyone three years ago had predicted that this would be the emerging division on foreign policy for Obama's reelection campaign they would have been laughed out of the room.

Are we seeing a newly realist Republican Party? Or is this a momentary search for political opportunity? Only time will tell, but if Monday's debate is any indication, the fault lines for Campaign 2012 might not be as predictable as once imagined.

Perhaps the most surprising foreign-policy moment of the night came when Mitt Romney, channeling his inner Dennis Kucinich circa 2003, said on Afghanistan, "It's time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can," adding, "We've learned that our troops shouldn't go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation. Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan's independence from the Taliban." (Less surprisingly, Ron Paul was also in favor of U.S. troop withdrawals, though he suggested a far more immediate timetable.) It's worth noting that just this past January, Romney was speaking of the need for a long-term U.S. presence in Afghanistan and his desire "not to leave" the fight there.

Libya gave the Republican wannabes a chance to go even further in a realist direction. When asked whether the war there was in the "vital national interest of the United States," Michele Bachmann said, "No, I don't believe so." She was seconded by Herman Cain and to a lesser extent by Newt Gingrich, though in fairness he seemingly has had more positions on Libya than he now has campaign staff. Had former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman been at the debate he likely would have been speaking in similar terms, as he has been the one GOP candidate to offer the greatest skepticism of Obama's military campaigns in Libya and Afghanistan, citing spiraling costs and the lack of national interest.

EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/Getty Images

 

FORLORNEHOPE

5:08 AM ET

June 15, 2011

Lessons from the past

In the nineteenth century the British in India found that any attempt to rule Afghanistan was a dead loss. What they did very successfully was to punish the Afghans every time they caused trouble on the frontier. This was highly effective in keeping them quiet and was repeated at almost exactly forty year intervals in 1839, 1879 and 1919. The policy was so successful that even when Britain was otherwise occupied during 1857 the Afghans stayed quiet and didn't even have to be "bought off".

 

STEVEM

8:45 AM ET

June 15, 2011

Where was all of this insight

Where was all of this insight from these same people 10 years ago when George Bush kicked of the perpetual war machine. And if Neocon war-monger John McCain had won the presidency, would we be hearing the same criticism from those same Republican faces? Of course not. Those positions are more anti-Obama than anything else.

Moreover, all of the Republicans candidates except Ron Paul support fully funding the already engorged Military-Security Leviathan into the future. And the latest Republican up and comers lauded as the next generation saviors of the Party include the bellicose but stupid Marco Rubio and the atrocious militarist Allen West who calls for even money to be thrown at the Complex.

People may be starting to a take a more objective look at the pathological Neocon policy model. But it is still the norm in the Republican Party as long as the AEI/Heritage cabal, The Weekly Standard, NRO and Fox News continue to call the tune.

 

AR

10:35 AM ET

June 15, 2011

Exactly! All but Ron Paul

Exactly! All but Ron Paul are politiking and trying to win points, none of them really support their positions about the military and American FP because they know what their corporate donors wish and it isn't a small military budget or less wars.

 

KUNINO

3:30 PM ET

June 15, 2011

Cohen's unusual mind

"Blundering", "belligerent" and "inattentive" are three words to spring to my mind in thinking of GWB's foreign policy, ahead of Mr Cohen's nominations. Dr Rice, favorably mentioned in this piece, turned out to be a failed national security adviser promoted (or failed upwards) to the position of secretary of state. Her main achievements in that role seem to have been threatening Iran from time to time, hiding her face, literally, while in Beirut, and playing the piano at sundry international conferences. At other international conferences, her president distinguished himself by leaving conference rooms to take a healthful and refreshing ride outdoors on his bike.

Admitted to the White House for lengthy private interviews, Bob Woodward was surprised to see how facilely that president put toone side and forgot major foreign affairs decision he made. This suggested a mental deficiency, but we will see whether this was the case.

 

DDSNAIK

5:05 PM ET

June 15, 2011

Hear ye, hear ye

Well put - the real shame being that a clearly talented woman subserviently fell in line behind a twit and his merry bunch

 

TING-SHIANG LEE

5:35 AM ET

June 16, 2011

A Transpacific Treaty Organization ?

A Transpacific Treaty Organization (TTO), by definition and in its complete form should include the following countries :
Russia, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, China, ASEAN 10 nations, Smaller Pacific Island nations, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US, Mexico, Pacific coastal nations of Central and South Americas (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Chile). Among them, US and Canada are also members of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), whereby Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea are NATO contact countries.

And a look at the map shows clearly that TTO and NATO encircles the globe in a 360 degree fashion, albeit not including many inland and some seaside nations, which from far east to the west, are connected, primarily, by Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States), CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization), EU (European Union), OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference), League of Arab States, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the African Union (AU), the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Arctic Five, among other organizations such as OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) and OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe), albeit perhaps many duplications and redundancies exist.

It comes as obvious that major powers such as India and Iran (a member of OIC only) do not belong to any of these organizations perhaps for more reasons than one, and that is troublesome. They should have roles to play at a time that a new world order is being shaped. These powers should look at themselves as to the reasons why they are not members of major world organizations, and vice versa. Otherwise, things would be unsettling for both these powers and world's major organizations.

And that may be one of the reasons India and Iran are eager to join SCO, knowing China does not wish SCO to expand to become a counter weight to NATO, but Russia does wish SCO to develop naturally to its full potentials. US blessing is essential to these developments, as is obvious and observed, not only on the SCO side of the matter, but on the TTO side of the matter, as well.

 

JCKDOORS

3:05 PM ET

June 16, 2011

Easy to run, difficult to govern

Where is all the international, foreign policy experience that was called for when Obama ran?

 

ICEZY

8:15 AM ET

June 19, 2011

Of course it is now backfiring

Of course it is now backfiring with America nearly bankrupt, the notion that the American war machine is invincible down the toilet eBooks Resale Rights
and America completely isolated and disrespected in the entire world.

 

CHANGS

11:53 PM ET

July 11, 2011

It will be interesting to see who comes out on top.

It will be interesting to see who wins the GOP primary and how his/her rhetoric sifts once the nomination is won. For while the GOP base may still be for wars, the rest of the country is tired of the loss of life and money.

The internet plays a major role in what happens in today's political world. With the ease of operating a blog, everybody can broadcast their opinions and their lies to the world, winning a following for their viewpoint.

This internet success of the blogs has almost been as bad for this country as the cable "news" networks in selling biased opinions and lies to the US public as "news".

 

SOFTENG

4:59 AM ET

July 13, 2011

Moreover, all of the

Moreover, all of the Republicans candidates except Ron Paul support fully funding the already engorged Military-Security Leviathan into the future. And the latest Republican up and comers lauded as the next generation saviors of the Party include the bellicose but stupid Marco Rubio and the atrocious militarist Allen West who calls for even money to be thrown at the Complex eliminatebadcredit.The internet plays a major role in what happens in today's political world. With the ease of operating a blog, everybody can broadcast their opinions and their lies to the world, winning a following for their viewpoint.

 

SOFTENG

5:33 AM ET

July 13, 2011

Moreover, all of the

Moreover, all of the Republicans candidates except Ron Paul support fully funding the already engorged Military-Security Leviathan into the future. And the latest Republican up and comers lauded as the next generation saviors of the Party include the bellicose but stupid Marco Rubio and the atrocious militarist Allen West who calls for even money to be thrown at the Complex eliminatebadcredit.The internet plays a major role in what happens in today's political world. With the ease of operating a blog, everybody can broadcast their opinions and their lies to the world, winning a following for their viewpoint.