Sarah Palin: On the Future of Libya

As posted on Facebook and SarahPAC:
*

On the Future of Libya

We join the Libyan people in gratefulness as we hear of Col. Gaddafi’s defeat. The fall of a tyrant and sponsor of terrorism is a great day for freedom-loving people around the world. But the path to democracy in Libya is not complete, and we must make wise choices to ensure that our national interests are protected.

First, the White House needs to avoid triumphalism. Gaddafi may be gone, but the fighting may not be complete. As we’ve seen in Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, we must not celebrate too quickly. There are now mounting concerns that we will see tribal and sectarian fighting in Libya like we saw in Iraq. Let’s hope that is not the case, but it must be prepared for.

Second, we must be very concerned about the future government that will emerge to take Gaddafi’s place. History teaches that those with the guns usually prevail when a coalition overthrows a tyrant. We must remember that military power ultimately resides with the rebel commanders. This should be a source of some concern. The armed opposition to Gaddafi is an outgrowth of a group called Islamic Libya Fighting Group, and some rebel commanders admit that they have Al Qaeda links. The rebel fighters are from different tribes, and they have a variety of political views. Some are Islamists, some appear to favor some sort of western democracy. We should work through diplomatic means to help those who want democracy to come out on top.

That said, we should not commit U.S. troops or military assets to serve as peacekeepers or perform humanitarian missions or nation-building in Libya. Our military is already over-committed and strained, and a vaguely designed mission can be the first step toward a quagmire. The internal situation does not seem stable enough for U.S. forces to operate in a purely humanitarian manner without the possibility of coming under attack. Troop deployment to Libya would mean placing America’s finest in a potentially hostile zone that is not in our vital national security interest.

Finally, we must make sure that terrorist groups don’t try to co-opt the revolution, as Al Qaeda is trying to do in Syria. We should continue to use our intelligence assets to monitor the situation in Libya to ensure that potentially dangerous weapons are secured, and that terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda don’t gain a foothold in Libya.

People of Libya, be vigilant. May this opportunity be used to build a free and peaceful country.

- Sarah Palin

- JP

Gov. Palin: New Afghanistan Development Dangerous to NATO

If Karzai takes "unilateral action" against NATO, we should immediately withdraw our forces
*
Sarah Palin posted on her Facebook Notes page today her her reaction to a recent threat made by Afghanistan's president to NATO:

New Afghanistan Development Dangerous to NATO

After learning this afternoon of Afghan President Karzai’s ultimatum to NATO concerning airstrikes, we need to consider how dangerous this new development is. While it's always devastating to hear about civilians killed in the fight against the Taliban, President Karzai surely knows that no one works harder to eliminate civilian casualties than NATO. His public ultimatum issued today to allies and supposed friends is dangerous. What President Karzai is saying is that if we don’t severely limit our air campaign he will take “unilateral action.” And he further says that if the airstrikes continue we will be seen as an “occupying” power. This is an indirect way of saying that American and NATO forces will be fair game, which is obviously an unacceptable situation that threatens our troops. His comments reflect the reality that there is a growing divide between NATO and the Karzai government. Let us be clear: we are in Afghanistan fighting for the Afghan people and for the security of our country and our allies. If President Karzai continues with these public ultimatums, we must consider our options about the immediate future of U.S. troops in his country. If he actually follows through on his claim that Afghan forces will take “unilateral action” against NATO forces who conduct such air raids to take out terrorists and terrorist positions, that should result in the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and the suspension of U.S. aid. I still firmly support our mission in Afghanistan, but we must have the support of the host government. Our troops’ mission will be compromised and their safety endangered if the Afghan government threatens us.

- Sarah Palin

- JP

Gov. Palin On Borrowing Foreign Money to Give to Foreign Countries

"Throwing borrowed money around is not sound economic policy."
*
Sarah Palin comments on her Facebook Notes page regarding the latest reckless, boneheaded move by our incompetent president:

Should we be borrowing money from China to turn
around and give it to the Muslim Brotherhood?

Given that we are running massive deficits and are drowning in more than $14 trillion in debt, and despite not knowing who will rule Egypt until its election this fall, this strange strategy may be the end result given President Obama’s announcement that he is committing $2 billion to Egypt’s “new government.” It’s part of a $20 billion foreign aid package laid out with the Group of 8 countries in Europe today.

Now, given that Egypt has a history of corruption when it comes to utilizing American aid, it is doubtful that the money will really help needy Egyptian people. Couple that with the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is organized to have a real shot at taking control of Egypt’s government, and one has to ask why we would send money (that we don’t have) into unknown Egyptian hands?

Throwing borrowed money around is not sound economic policy. And throwing borrowed money around the developing world is not sound foreign policy. Foreign assistance should go to American allies that need it and appreciate it, and for humanitarian purposes when it can truly make a difference.

Considering the Obama Administration’s continued strange strategies on the economy and foreign policy has us counting down the days to the next election. November 2012 can’t come soon enough.

- Sarah Palin

- JP

Gov. Palin: Barack Obama’s Disregard for Ally’s Security Begs Clarity

Obama's words have caused confusion and distressed Israel
*
A new foreign policy commentary by Sarah Palin, posted today on her Facebook page:

Barack Obama’s Disregard for Ally’s Security Begs Clarity

As I noted on Judge Jeanine Pirro’s show this weekend, I reject President Obama’s idea that Israel must cede back its territories to the 1967 line. Will we now be in the habit of telling our allies what their borders should be? Should Prime Minister Netanyahu suggest we return to our 1845 borders before the annexation of the southwest of the United States during the Mexican-American War? Should we give back parts of Texas, New Mexico, and California?

But the problem is even deeper. In both his State Department speech and his speech yesterday at AIPAC, President Obama made some seemingly specific comments about the Palestinian state that he wants to see created. He either misspoke or he has even more dangerous plans for our friends in Israel than he is publicly admitting.

In the State Department speech, President Obama said that he wants the borders of Palestine and Israel to “be based on the 1967 lines” (in other words, with both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as part of the new Palestinian state) and that he wants a Palestine that is a “sovereign and contiguous state” (emphasis added). The Merriam–Webster dictionary defines “contiguous” as “being in actual contact: touching along a boundary or at a point; of angles, adjacent; next or near in time or sequence; touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence,” like the “contiguous United States” which obviously excludes Alaska and Hawaii.

But the 1967 lines do not include a “contiguous” Palestine. (See the map here.) So what does he mean? The President proposes “mutually agreed [land] swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” Is linking Gaza and the West Bank with a road the “secured border” he has in mind? Or is he suggesting something more? Is it not possible he’s suggesting that the only way you can create a “contiguous” Palestinian state with “secured” borders is by carving Israel in half? Clarification on this point is of paramount importance, Mr. President.

In fact, that leads me to another even bigger geographic problem with the President’s remarks. As the British newspaper The Independent points out, there is further confusion because President Obama said, “The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.” As The Independent asks: “How does that square with the pre-1967 borders? Was the President implying that the new improved Israel will border neither Jordan nor Egypt, as it does now? Would Palestine’s contiguous territory come at the expense of Israel’s? Would Israel get the Gaza Strip and the Mediterranean and Palestine get the Negev and a Red Sea port?”

Is that what you have in mind, Mr. President? Do you not want an Israeli border with Egypt? You need to clarify what you mean. Diplomacy requires precision and you are causing enormous anxiety for some and making commitments to others that you might not be able to keep.

It has long been the dream of radicals like Noam Chomsky to create a “contiguous Palestine.” True, President George W. Bush spoke ambiguously of a “contiguous” Palestinian state, but he never defined it geographically with borders the way President Obama has, and he had the security of our ally Israel in mind more than our current President. President Obama has in essence boxed Israel in without regard for the facts on the ground and without appreciating the fact that Israel looks across the negotiating table and sees the terrorist organization Hamas in alliance with Fatah. Israel has demonstrated in the past that it is willing to negotiate fairly with a genuine partner in peace. Just look at the treaty it maintains to this day with Egypt. All of this should have been considered and the President’s words should have been carefully measured so as to help and not hinder the peace process. Unfortunately, his words have caused confusion and distressed our ally.

- Sarah Palin

This opinion piece by Gov. Palin has been cross-posted here on the SarahPAC website.

- JP

Will Cain Get The Palin Treatment? You Betcha! (Updated)

The Hermanator desperately needs a Peter Schweizer
*
In his appearance on "Fox News Sunday" this morning, Herman Cain tripped over the Right of Return. How much pain will he feel from the bad step? That depends on how much slack certain people are willing to cut him for the stumble, which apparently will be "not much."

We are reminded of the situation when Charles Gibson ambushed a freshly-minted GOP vice presidential candidate with the Bush Doctrine question in an ABC interview. The difference -- aside from the fact that she was just a presidential candidate's running mate at the time, while Cain is running for the top job -- is that she's been working on her foreign policy chops since then and recently took it to the next level with the hiring of Peter Schweizer as her foreign policy advisor.

Cain rather inexpicably told Chris Wallace that he wouldn't even start on a security plan until after he's elected. While we appreciate his candor, it was the Wrong Answer. Too Pelosi, as in "we won't know what's in the ObamaCare bill until it passes." Sure, the lamestream media will let Pelosi get away with that stuff, but they will eviscerate a conservative presidential candidate for it. Wrong Answer on the Right Of Return also. Cain said it was an issue for negotiation, but most Israelis (not just the Likud right) consider the matter non-negotiable.

Mr. Cain is where Gov. Palin was three years ago on foreign policy issues. Governors and businessmen were not expected to demonstrate expertise on foreign policy in the past, even when they were candidates for president, and certainly not when running for the next job down the pay grade scale. But those goalposts were moved in 2008. There's no Right of Return to the days of Harry S. Truman, when free passes on foreign policy knowledge were still being handed out to candidates for national office.

The Hermanator is a fine man and a great conservative, but that don't-ask-me-until-I'm-elected attitude will only serve to get him perceived as cabinet-level timber at best (think Commerce Secretary), not the stuff presidents are made of. Unless he ditches that particular non-response and gets serious about foreign policy, as Sarah Palin has done, the Obamunist media will shred him quicker than you can say, "In what respect, Charlie?"

To our friends who are enthusiastic Cain supporters, we can only echo Bruce Willis' "Die Hard" character with, "Welcome to the party, pal." As Palin supporters, we have been there and seen that. This much is indisputable: Sarah Palin is the most vetted candidate in political history. She's come a long, long way in the past three years, and she's posted numerous op-eds dealing with foreign policy issues on her Facebook Notes page and in such publications as National Review. These writings reveal how hard she's studied these critical issues and how well all that work is paying off for her. Herman Cain, God bless and protect him, is just now starting down that long hard road.

Update: According to Stacy McCain, Herman Cain has issued a clarification.

- JP

Mark Whittington: Gov. Palin a Modern Cold War Hero in the Making

Schweizer's critique of Obama's Libya policy may help explain why Sarah hired him
*
Yahoo! Contributor Mark Whittington finds it significant that Sarah Palin not only has a foreign policy advisor in the first place, but that she chose Peter Schweizer for the position:

Palin has not even announced a run for the presidency, not to speak of actually winning the office. But it may well be that we already know whom her National Security Adviser will be should she attain the Oval Office.

This suggests that a President Palin's foreign policy will be at once less and more aggressive than what has been conducted during the past 10 years. Noting the five-point "Palin Doctrine" articulated recently, there would be fewer deployments of conventional American forces overseas. Those that occur will be engaged in sharp, overwhelming campaigns of limited duration and clear, measurable goals. These campaigns would more resemble Grenada during the Reagan administration and Panama and the Gulf War during the first Bush administration than Afghanistan, Iraq, or especially Libya.

At the same time, a President Palin would strike at the enemies of the United States, such as Iran, and assist her friends with a whole panoply of tools, ranging from economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and support for protesters and insurgents. In short, Palin would deal with Iran, Syria and North Korea, among other countries, the same way Reagan dealt with the Soviet Union, as Schweizer chronicled in his book on Reagan's strategy to end the communist regime in Russia, "Victory: The Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union."

Palin would learn from the successes of Reagan's Cold War strategy and adapt it for the realities of the 21st Century.

[More]

- JP

Tony Lee: The Emergence of a Sarah Palin Foreign Policy Doctrine?

"We don’t go looking for dragons to slay"
*
Human Events columnist Tony Lee observes that the first elements of what could become a Palin foreign policy doctrine emerged Tuesday in the principles she outlined in her Colorado speech:

Palin said that “we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake. Period.”

Then, Palin said that if America commits troops and “if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that, we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not stretch out our military with open-ended and ill-defined missions. Nation building is a nice idea in theory, but it is not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.”

Echoing the famous Powell Doctrine, Palin then said that “we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly and concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent into battle.”

Palin then said that “American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side with our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and the command of American officers.”

Palin also said America should never be in a rush to send in troops...”

[More]

Related: Daniel Horowitz, The Palin Foreign Policy Doctrine

- JP

Quote of the Day (December 21, 2010)

*
Dan Calabrese at North Star National:

"I’ll side with Sarah Palin... and her reality-based notion of the real stakes on the issue of geopolitical influence and nuclear proliferation, as evidenced by her thoughtful piece today in USA Today on the threat posed by Iran. Palin is a bright, knowledgeable source of information and insight on foreign policy. Anyone who doesn’t think so should become more familiar with her actual thinking, not just the pop culture notions about her."

- JP

Sarah Palin: It’s time to get tough with Iran

The free world must stand with the Iranian people
*
Gov. Palin posted another foreign policy statement on Facebook and in a national newspaper this morning:

It’s time to get tough with Iran

The following op-ed was published by USA Today:

Iran continues to defy the international community in its drive to acquire nuclear weapons. Arab leaders in the region rightly fear a nuclear-armed Iran. We suspected this before, but now we know for sure because of leaked diplomatic cables. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia "frequently exhorted the U.S. to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons program," according to these communications. Officials from Jordan said the Iranian nuclear program should be stopped by any means necessary. Officials from the United Arab Emirates and Egypt saw Iran as evil, an "existential threat" and a sponsor of terrorism. If Iran isn't stopped from obtaining nuclear weapons, it could trigger a regional nuclear arms race in which these countries would seek their own nuclear weapons to protect themselves.

That wouldn't be the only catastrophic consequence for American interests in the Middle East. Our credibility and reputation would suffer a serious blow if Iran succeeds in producing its own nuclear weapons after we've been claiming for years that such an event could not and would not be tolerated. A nuclear-armed and violently anti-American Iran would be an enormous threat to us and to our allies. Israel in particular would face the gravest threat to its existence since its creation. Iran's leaders have repeatedly called for Israel's destruction, and Iran already possesses missiles that can reach Israel. Once these missiles are armed with nuclear warheads, nothing could stop the mullahs from launching a second Holocaust. It's only a matter of time before Iran develops missiles that could reach U.S. territory.

Even without nuclear weapons, Iran has provided arms used to kill American soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is also the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It has shielded al-Qaeda leaders, including one of Osama bin Laden's sons. Imagine how much worse it would be for us if this regime acquired nuclear weapons.

Toughen up

President Obama once said a nuclear-armed Iran would be "unacceptable." Yet, Iran's nuclear progress still continues unchecked. Russia continues to support Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors. It also continues to sell arms to Iran — despite the Obama administration's much-touted "reset" policy with Russia. The administration trumpets the United Nations sanctions passed earlier this year, but those sanctions are not the " crippling" ones we were promised. Much more can be done, such as banning insurance for shipments to Iran, banning all military sales to Iran, ending all trade credits, banning all financial dealings with Iranian banks, limiting Iran's access to international capital markets and banking services, closing air space and waters to Iran's national air and shipping lines, and, especially, ending Iran's ability to import refined petroleum. These would be truly "crippling" sanctions. They would work if implemented.

Some have said the Israelis should undertake military action on their own if they are convinced the Iranian program is approaching the point of no return. But Iran's nuclear weapons program is not just Israel's problem; it is the world's problem. I agree with the former British prime minister Tony Blair, who said recently that the West must be willing to use force "if necessary" if that is the only alternative.

Standing with the people

But we also need to encourage a positive vision for Iran. Iran is not condemned to live under the totalitarian inheritance of the Ayatollah Khomeini forever. There is an alternative — an Iran where human rights are respected, where women are not subjugated, where terrorist groups are not supported and neighbors are not threatened. A peaceful, democratic Iran should be everyone's goal. There are many hopeful signs inside Iran that reveal the Iranian people's desire for this peaceful, democratic future. We must encourage their voices.

When the brave people of Iran take to the streets in defiance of their unelected dictatorship, they must know that we in the free world stand with them. When the women of Iran rise up to demand their rights, they must know that we women of the free world who enjoy the rights won for us by our suffragist foremothers stand with our sisters there. When Iranians demand freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and freedom to simply live their lives as they choose without persecution, we in the free world must stand with them.

We can start by supporting them with diplomacy and things such as radio broadcasting, just as we did with those who suffered under the former Soviet Empire. Most of all, we should support them with confidence in the rightness of the ideals of liberty and justice.

Just as Ronald Reagan once denounced an "evil empire" and looked forward to a time when communism was left on the "ash heap of history," we should look forward to a future where the twisted ideology and aggressive will to dominate of Khomeini and his successors are consigned to history's dustbin.

- Sarah Palin

- JP

Seth Lipsky: The Palin Doctrine

*
In a New York Sun editorial, Seth Lipsky says that in her speeches and writings on national security and foreign policy, the 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate is staking out a Palin Doctrine. We've excerpted editor Lipsky's first four paragraphs:

One of the things that’s starting to emerge on the Republican side of the political struggle is a world view that can be called the Palin Doctrine. It’s remarkable that none of the other leading figures in the party has come to be associated with a particular foreign policy trajectory. Can one think, say, of a Pawlenty Doctrine or a Daniels Doctrine or a even a Perry or a Schwartzenegger or a Romney Doctrine? They each have their own bona fides, but developing the outlines of a coherent foreign policy view isn’t one of them.

Governor Palin, by contrast, has been starting to give us a glimpse what could be expected of her in foreign affairs. This has been occurring in public appearances and broadcasts and, most pointedly, in a posting on June 30 her Facebook. So while the left has been mocking her for a supposed lack of depth or learning, she has been filling in, line by line, a picture of her foreign policy views, ranging over topics from the Navy (she’s for an expansion of the fleet), to a view of the war (she’s a hawk), to a view of the dollar (she’s against a weak dollar strategy), to a view of Israel (unflinching support).

This isn't the first time talk of a Palin Doctrine has been in the news. As far back as September 2008, the phrase occurred in, among other places, a column by Arianna Huffington who likened Mrs. Palin’s to “Dick Cheney. With lipstick.” She noted, however, that the governor’s doctrine was still “under construction.” In the two years since then, the Alaskan has honed an increasingly cohesive and detailed world view. We’ve already noted her remarks in respect of the dollar, delivered in a speech in Hong Kong and on her face book page, as well as her willingness to breast the politically correct line on Israel.

One of the features of the Palin Doctrine is that the governor opposes what she calls an “enemy-centric” foreign policy. In marking this point she has picked up on the phrasing of one of the most sophisticated critics of President Obama’s foreign policy, Senator Alexandr Vondra of the Czech Republic. A one-time hero of the anti-Communist struggle, Mr. Vondra is a former Czech envoy in Washington and a former foreign minister...

Read the full NY Sun editorial here.

- JP

Quote of the Day (July 9, 2010)

*
Quin Hillyer:

" To her great credit, Sarah Palin is absolutely right on target in her insistence on maintaining a strong defense... Good for her. The GOP Class of 1994 in Congress had too many members who did the same thing Palin warns against: letting their admirable enthusiasm for lower deficits/balanced budgets get in the way of a commitment to putting national defense first... Hear, hear. Praise for Palin. Conservatives, and all Americans, should listen. "

- JP

Quote of the Day (July 5, 2010)

*
Mark Whittington:

"Sarah Palin usually uses her Facebook page to offer brief, pithy comments on issues of the day, or to respond to the latest attacks. But, Palin has now offered one of the most sophisticated analyses of Obama's defense and foreign policy ever published."

- JP

Quote of the Day (July 1, 2010)

*
Ed Morrissey:

"Sarah Palin’s critics sometimes poke fun at her regular messaging from her Facebook platform for a supposed lack of depth and heft. Her comprehensive look at military and foreign policy yesterday provides a rebuttal to those critiques, as well as a direct challenge to Barack Obama’s assertions of 'smart power.' Palin blasts Obama for his 'enemy-centric' foreign policy and criticizes Democrats who seek to score points on fiscal responsibility at the expense of the military... Democrats have made a lot of noise of late about reducing the military budget in order to demonstrate fiscal discipline, but Palin reminds her readers that defense is the main Constitutional duty of the federal government. There is certainly room for improvement in efficiency and procurement, which is a morass even in the best of times, but reduction of forces is a bad idea for a nation at war."

- JP

Sarah Palin: 'I want my message out'

*
On Facebook Wednesday, Sarah Palin debunked yet another media falsehood and published her notes from the speech she delivered in Virginia Sunday:

Peace Through Strength and American Pride vs. “Enemy-Centric” Policy

Earlier this week, I spoke at the Freedom Fest in Norfolk, Virginia; and, evidently, the media was asked to leave – not by me, that’s for sure. I want my message out, so despite reporters making up a story about “Palin people kicking us out” (uh, the “Palin people” entourage would consist of one person – my 15-year-old daughter, Willow – and I have no doubt she could take on any reporter, but I know for certain she didn’t “kick ‘em out” of the event). Anyway, here are some of the key issues I spoke about.

DEFENSE SPENDING

It takes a lot of resources to maintain the best fighting force in the world – especially at a time when we face financial uncertainty and a mountain of debt that threatens all of our futures.

We have a federal government that is spending trillions, and that has nationalized whole sections of our economy: the auto industry, the insurance industry, health care, student loans, the list goes on – all of it at enormous cost to the tax payer. The cost of Obamacare alone is likely to exceed $2.5 trillion dollars.

As a result of all these trillion dollar spending bills, America’s going bust in a hurry. By 2020 we may reach debt levels of $20 trillion – twice the debt that we have today! It reminds me of that joke I read the other day: “Please don’t tell Obama what comes after a trillion!”

Something has to be done urgently to stop the out of control Obama-Reid-Pelosi spending machine, and no government agency should be immune from budget scrutiny. We must make sure, however, that we do nothing to undermine the effectiveness of our military. If we lose wars, if we lose the ability to deter adversaries, if we lose the ability to provide security for ourselves and for our allies, we risk losing all that makes America great! That is a price we cannot afford to pay.

This may be obvious to you and me, but I am not sure the Obama Administration gets it. There isn’t a single progressive pet cause which they haven’t been willing to throw billions at. But when it comes to defense spending, all of a sudden they start preaching a message of “fiscal restraint.” Our Defense Secretary recently stated the “gusher” of defense spending was over and that it was time for the Department of Defense to tighten its belt. There’s a gusher of spending alright, but it’s not on defense. Did you know the US actually only ranks 25th worldwide on defense spending as a percentage of GDP? We spend three times more on entitlements and debt services than we do on defense.

Now don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing wrong with preaching fiscal conservatism. I want the federal government to balance its budget right now! And not the Washington way – which is raising your taxes to pay for their irresponsible spending habits. I want it done the American way: by cutting spending, reducing the size of government, and letting people keep more of their hard-earned cash.

But the Obama administration doesn’t practice what it preaches. This is an administration that won’t produce a budget for fear that we discover how reckless they’ve been as fiscal managers. At the same time, it threatens to veto a defense bill because of an extra jet engine!

This administration may be willing to cut defense spending, but it’s increasing it everywhere else. I think we should do it the other way round: cut spending in other departments – apart from defense. We should not be cutting corners on our national security.

THE U.S. NAVY

Secretary Gates recently spoke about the future of the US Navy. He said we have to “ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines, and $11 billion carriers.” He went on to ask, “Do we really need... more strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?”

Well, my answer is pretty simple: Yes, we can and, yes, we do because we must. Our Navy has global responsibilities. It patrols sea lanes and safeguards the freedoms of our allies – and ourselves. The Navy right now only has 286 ships, and that number may decrease. That will limit our options, extend tours for Navy personnel, lessen our ability to secure our allies and deter our adversaries. The Obama administration seems strangely unconcerned about this prospect.

OBAMA’S FOREIGN POLICY INHERITANCE

When George W. Bush came into office, he inherited a military that had been cut deeply, an al Qaeda that had been unchallenged, and an approach to terrorism that focused on bringing court cases rather than destroying those who sought to destroy us. We saw the result of some of that on 9/11.

When President Obama came into office, he inherited a military that was winning in Iraq. He inherited loyal allies and strong alliances. And thanks to the lamestream media pawing and purring over him, he had the benefit of unparalleled global popularity. What an advantage! So their basic foreign policy outlines should have been clear. Commit to the War on Terror. Commit to winning – not ending, but winning the war in Afghanistan. Commit to the fight against violent Islamic extremism wherever it finds sanctuary. Work with our allies. Be resolute with our adversaries. Promote liberty, not least because it enhances our security. Unfortunately, these basic principles seem to have been discarded by Washington.

THE WAR ON TERROR

His administration has banned the phrase “war on terror,” preferring instead politically correct nonsense like “overseas contingency operations.” His Homeland Security Secretary calls acts of terrorism “man-caused disasters.” His reckless plan to close Guantanamo (because there’s no place to go after it’s closed) faces bipartisan opposition now.

The Attorney General just announced that a decision about where to try terrorists like 9/11 master mind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would not be announced until after the mid-term elections. Is there something he’s afraid to tell us?

The President’s new National Security Strategy does not even use the word “Islamic” when referring to violent extremism. Does he think the ideology of those who seek to kill Americans is irrelevant? How can we seek to defeat an enemy if we don’t acknowledge what motivates them and what their ultimate goals are? President Obama may think he is being politically correct by dropping the term, but it flies in the face of reality. As Senator Joe Lieberman noted, refusing to use the word Islamic when describing the nature of the threat we face is “Orwellian and counterproductive.”

AFGHANISTAN

In Afghanistan, it is true that President Obama approved deploying additional forces to the conflict – most, but not all the troops requested by commanders on the ground. But it took months of indecision to get to that point, and it came at a very high price – a July 2011 date to begin withdrawal.

This date was arbitrary! It bears no relation to conditions on the ground. It sends all the wrong signals to our friends and to our enemies. We know our commanders on the ground are not comfortable with it.

As that great Navy war hero, Senator John McCain recently put it: “The decision to begin withdrawing our forces from Afghanistan arbitrarily in July 2011 seems to be having exactly the effect that many of us predicted it would: It is convincing the key actors inside and outside of Afghanistan that the United States is more interested in leaving than succeeding in this conflict.”

Does the President really believe the Taliban and al Qaeda won’t be empowered by his naming of a starting date for withdrawal? They now believe they can beat him simply by outlasting us. What sort of effect does he think this will have on the morale of our troops – and of our allies?

ALIENATING OUR ALLIES

It’s not the only area where the Obama administration has failed our allies. They escalated a minor zoning issue in Jerusalem into a major dispute with our most important ally in the Middle East, Israel. They treated the Israeli Prime Minister shabbily in Washington. When a Turkish sponsored flotilla threatened to violate a legal Israeli blockade of Hamas-run Gaza, the Obama Administration was silent. When Israeli commandos were assaulted as they sought to prevent unmonitored cargoes from being delivered to Hams terrorists, the Obama Administration sent signals it might allow a UN investigation into the matter – an investigation that would be sure to condemn our ally Israel and bemoan the plight of Hamas. Loyal NATO allies in central Europe were undermined by the cancellation of a missile defense program with virtually no warning. At the same time, Russia and China are given preferential treatment, while remaining silent on their human rights violations.

CODDLING ADVERSARIES

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration reaches out to some of the world’s worst regimes. They shake hands with dictators like Hugo Chavez, send letters to the Iranian mullahs and envoys to North Korea, ease sanctions on Cuba and talk about doing the same with Burma. That’s when they’re not on one of their worldwide apology tours.

Do we get anything in return for all this bowing and apologizing? No, we don’t. Yes, Russia voted for a weak sanctions resolution on Iran, but it immediately stated it could sell advanced anti-aircraft missile to Iran anyway, and would not end its nuclear cooperation. In response to North Korea’s unprovoked sinking of a South Korean Navy ship, China warned us not to take part in military exercises with our ally.

And while President Obama lets America get pushed around by the likes of Russia and China, our allies are left to wonder about the value of an alliance with the U.S. They have to be wondering if it’s worth it.

AN “ENEMY-CENTRIC” FOREIGN POLICY

It has led one prominent Czech official to call Obama’s foreign policy “enemy-centric.” And this “enemy-centric” approach has real consequences. It not only baffles our allies, it worries them. When coupled with less defense spending, it signals to the world that maybe we can no longer be counted on, and that we have other priorities than being the world leader that keeps the peace and provides security in Europe, in Asia and throughout the world.

Together with this enemy-centric foreign policy, we see a lessening of the long, bipartisan tradition of speaking out for human rights and democracy. The Secretary of State said she would not raise human rights with China because “we pretty much know what they are going to say.” Democracy promotion programs have been cut. Support for the brave Iranians protesting their government was not forthcoming because President Obama would rather try to cut a deal with their oppressors.

When the world’s dictators see the United States unconcerned with human rights and political freedom, they breathe a sigh of relief, because they know they have a free hand to repress their own people.

This goes against the very ideals on which our republic was founded. There is a long bipartisan tradition of speaking out in favor of freedom – from FDR to Ronald Reagan. America loses something very important when its President consigns human rights and freedom to the back burner of its international priorities.

A DIFFERENT VIEW OF AMERICA

We have a President, perhaps for the very first time since the founding of our republic, who doesn’t appear to believe that America is the greatest earthly force for good the world has ever known.

When asked whether he believed in American exceptionalism, President Obama answered, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Amazing. Amazing.

I think this statement speaks volumes about his world view. He sees nothing unique in the American experience? Really? Our founding, and our founding mothers and fathers? Really? And our history over the past two and half centuries?

Really? He sees nothing unique in an America that fought and won two world wars and in victory sought not one inch of territory or one dollar of plunder? He sees nothing unique in an America that, though exhausted by conflict, still laid the foundation for security in Europe and Asia after World War II? He sees nothing unique in an America that prevailed against an evil ideology in the Cold War? Does he just sees a country that has to be apologized for around the world, especially to dictators?

President Obama actually seems reluctant to even embrace American power. Earlier this year when he was asked about his faltering Middle East peace process, he said “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.” Whether we like it or not?! Really? Mr. President, this may come as news to you, but most Americans actually do like it. And so do our allies. They know it was our military might that liberated countless millions from tyranny, slavery, and oppression over the last 234 years. Yes, we do like it. As a dominant superpower, the United States has won wars hot and cold; our military has advanced the cause of freedom and kept authoritarian powers in check.

It is in America’s and the world’s best interests for our country to remain the dominant military superpower, but under President Obama’s leadership that dominance may be slipping away. It’s the result of an agenda that reeks of complacency and defeatism.

(I went on from there to talk about our need to end the negative, defeatist attitudes of those in leadership. I spoke further on American exceptionalism, and Willow and I ended a great evening with some great patriots. Sorry the media chose to report anything other than what actually happened at the event.)

- Sarah Palin

- JP

Sarah Palin: Obama Admin. "threatens the very foundation" of US-Israel relations

*
Sarah Palin has weighed in on the rapidly deteriorating relationship between the U.S. and Israel. In a statement provided to Politico by one of her aides, Gov. Palin criticized the Obama Administration for widening the chasm between the two long time allies and called on President Obama to "push the reset button" on our relations with Israel:

The Obama Administration reaches out to some of the world’s worst regimes in the name of their engagement policy. America and our allies watch as sanctions are eased on Cuba. Letters are written to Iran’s mullahs only to see that regime start killing protestors in the streets of Tehran. Envoys are sent to North Korea as they continue to defy the world’s demand to give up their nuclear weapons. The Burmese military junta’s representative is allowed to travel to our nation's capital. The President’s envoy for Sudan talks about giving that genocidal regime “gold stars,” while the President shakes hands with Venezuela’s tyrannical leader. In the midst of all this embracing of enemies, where does the Obama Administration choose to escalate a minor incident into a major diplomatic confrontation? With Iran, Cuba, Sudan, North Korea or Burma? No. With our treasured ally, Israel.

Last October, Secretary of State Clinton recognized Israel's desire for peace in the Middle East and praised Israel's “unprecedented” concessions for agreeing to halt settlement construction in the West Bank, a concession that did NOT include halting construction of apartments for Jews in Jerusalem. Even last week after planned construction was announced, Vice President Biden still expressed “appreciation” for the “significant” steps taken by the Israeli government to address this minor issue. Now, however, we see the Obama Administration has decided to escalate, make unilateral demands of Israel, and threaten the very foundation of the US-Israel relationship. This is quickly leading to the worst crisis in US-Israel relations in decades, and yet this did not have to happen. More importantly, it needs to stop before it spirals out of control. Vice President Biden should rein in the overheated Obama Administration rhetoric and chill the political spin masters' fire as they visit the Sunday media shows to criticize Israel.

Once again, the Obama Administration is missing the boat on a very, very important issue. They need to go back to the basics and acknowledge Palestinian leaders have not progressed any peace process since President Obama was elected. As Israel makes concessions (and is still criticized by the Obama Administration), Arab leaders are just sitting back waiting for the White House to further pressure Israel. The Obama Administration needs to open its eyes and recognize that it is only Iran and her terrorist allies that benefit from this manufactured Israeli controversy. Vice President Biden was actually right when he said last week, before the construction announcement, that “one necessary precondition for progress is that the rest of the world knows...there is absolutely no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to security.” Right now, thanks to the Obama Administration, there is a chasm. It's time for President Obama to push the reset button on our relations with our ally Israel.

Update: This statement has been posted on Sarah Palin's Facebook Notes page.

- JP

Sarah Palin's World View

"Palin's worldview takes shape in Hong Kong," an article posted on foreign Policy magazine's The Cable blog, remarked that the 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate's Asian speech...

"...included some of the most critical statements about the Chinese Communist Party by an American political leader in years."

The FP post also included several excerpts from Palin's speech. One which we found significant seems to put some distance between her and the neoconservative world view of the George W. Bush administration:

"I am not talking about some U.S.-led "democracy crusade." We cannot impose our values on other counties. Nor should we seek to. But the ideas of freedom, liberty and respect for human rights are not U.S. ideas, they are much more than that."

When the Democrat-Media Complex isn't obsessing over the fact that it hasn't been made privy to Palin's specific geographic location at any specific point in time, some news manages to emerge from their reports, provided one bothers to wade through the mostly gratuitous criticism of the former governor. From the AP, which since the closing days of August, 2008, has become an acronym for "Anti-Palin":

Her 90-minute speech Wednesday at an investment conference touched on issues from financial markets to health care, Afghanistan and U.S-China relations. It was generally considered more moderate in tone than those Palin delivered during her 2008 campaign for vice president as Republican John McCain's running mate.

Considering that a vice-presidential candidate's traditional role is to act as an attack dog so the presidential candidate can take a "higher road" it should not be earth-shaking news that Palin's Asian speech was more moderate in tone than her stump speeches during campaign season. Really, AP.

While it is becoming apparent to all but those with their hands over their eyes that Barack Obama is in way over his head, Sarah Palin is bolstering her credentials. It seems to us not so much that she is redefining herself, as the title to a new op-ed by American Thinker's James Lewis would indicate, but rather that she is finally free to refine and discuss her own world view. This was not possible when she was cast in the subservient role as McCain's understudy, nor as governor of Alaska was she free to talk about foreign policy matters.

Lewis defines Palin's Hong Kong address as "well-crafted":

It's well worth reading the whole thing. Palin showed Reagan's classic simplicity and directness, and like the Gipper's best talks, she went straight to the heart of today's political battle. Unlike Mitt Romney, who is extremely sharp but much too stiff and patrician, Palin is an American conservative in the classic mold, a populist in her natural style, but extremely bright, thoughtful, and increasingly sophisticated. Foreign policy speeches should have careful phrasing and nuances, and then hit a few big ones out of the ballpark. This one was a winner.

Palin spoke in Hong Kong, the most cosmopolitan city in China. By addressing China in both a fair and a tough-minded way she is likely to make a favorable impression. I would think that the Chinese and Japanese are more impressed by clarity and honesty than by flattery and evasions. So you can be sure it is being read all over Asia.

Since the election campaign, it seems that Sarah Palin recruited a top-notch team of advisors and political talent. The Hong Kong speech goes straight to her alleged weakness in foreign affairs, and it is a very good first step toward re-making her media image to be more substantive. The truth is that most of our media heads would not recognize foreign policy substance if it hit them right between the eyes. But they know the image of substance, and the Hong Kong speech was good on both appearance and reality. She demonstrated "gravitas" -- in the pop slogan of the early Bush years. We need more of the same, but she has now shown convincingly that she can do it.

Sarah Palin's world view is already being measured against those of other world leaders. Lenny Cacchio at Morning Companion was struck by "the stark contrast" between Palin's view of the world and that of Marxist dictator Hugo Chavez:

"The opposite of a common-sense conservative is a liberalism that holds that there is no human problem that government can't fix if only the right people are put in charge. Unfortunately, history and common sense are not on its side. We don't trust utopian promises; we deal with human nature as it is."

– Sarah Palin

“Those who want to go directly to hell, they can follow capitalism. And those of us who want to build heaven on earth, we will follow socialism.” 

-- Hugo Chavez.

[...]

The problem with the modern secular humanist’s take on perfectibility is the danger it poses in practice. If one is in government and views human nature as intrinsically good, or at least perfectible without God, that person will have a different approach to such characters as Mahmoud Achmanidijad or other lesser terrorists. They become “misunderstood”, people who can be talked to, even appeased into peace.

[...]

On the other hand, if you view human nature as inherently flawed and self-centered, and not perfectible by human means, you must set up a system of checks and balances, limiting the chance that any single, flawed individual will gain too much control.

[...]

Interestingly enough, this is one of the basic differences between classical conservatism and neo-conservatism, which itself has a messianic belief that establishing democracy around the world is all that is needed to bring peace. Think of the Bush Doctrine and its inspiration found in Natan Sharansky’s book The Case for Democracy, which heavily influenced President Bush’s thinking on the subject.

Libertarians must fight this tendency as well, some of whom believe that the more liberty people have, the better society will be. I love liberty, but there can be no such liberty without the rule of law. Ideally, that law would be the perfect law of liberty that James mentions in his epistle. Or, as John Adams says, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

The political pendulum is always in motion, though its movement can be so slight as to be difficult to perceive at times. It has proscribed an arc away from Ronald Reagan's world view which brought America economic recover and growth while, along with the compatible world views of Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, brought the fall of the Soviet Union and the blessings of liberty to millions of Eastern Europeans. The pendulum has been out of balance now for two decades.

Sarah Palin's world view is consistent with those of Reagan, Thatcher and the late Holy Father. She has been praised for possessing exceptional political skills. She will need them if she intends to bear the standard of the Republican Party as the first true conservative candidate for the presidency since Ronald Reagan. If she can accomplish that formidable task, voters will be able to choose between her world view and that of Barack Obama, one that seems to reward our enemies and punish our traditional allies while dropping our defensive guard at the same time. In that time of choosing, the fate of the free world may hang in the balance.

- JP

Quote of the Day (September 27, 2009)

Jim Vicevich:

"As it turns out, Palin wasn’t the one we had to worry about when it came to foreign policy. It was the One... I can assure you she would not have given up the missile defense in Europe without something in return. Come to think of it, she wouldn’t have given it up at all."

- JP