The Republican Party used to be the Party that believed in being cautious on interventionism. In 1920, the GOP undid Woodrow Wilson’s Progressive intervention in Latin America by ending the occupation of several nations like the Dominican Republic. Eisenhower ended the Korea war and Nixon ended the Vietnam War. Reagan was a cautious interventionist as well. He only went into Granada because of the presence of Cuban troops, he pulled out of Lebanon because he saw no US interest there (huge mistake), struck Libya in retaliation for the Berlin Disco bombing and only hit the Iranians during Operation Flying Mantis because they were interfering with shipping. Since then the GOP has become the Party of unlimited war.
Some Republicans would love to invade everybody and force Democracy at the point of a Gun. It sickened me to see the GOP cheer lead Obama’s war in Libya to help AL-Qaeda. The same Party that claims to fight Islamic terror, is enabling it.
It’s still worthwhile to consider some of the dynamics surrounding the U.S. decision. The influence of the media is one—a million microphones clamoring for action will tend to force action. The administration no doubt feared grim pictures from Benghazi and the damage those pictures could do to the president’s reputation and standing. Another dynamic, I suspect, is a change in presidential leadership style the past few decades, toward a bias for dramatic or physical action, toward the seemingly bold move. The other night I was with an old Reagan hand who noted that Ronald Reagan broke ground by speaking truth to and about the Soviets, by holding up his hand and saying “Stop,” by taking tough diplomatic actions, by working closely with the Soviets’ great foes, Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher. But he didn’t break ground by literally breaking ground! He didn’t invade Eastern Europe. He was judicious about the use of military might.
[….]
Political operatives are sort of embarrassed by caution and judiciousness now, as if they are an indicator of weakness (the Democrats’ traditional worry) or a lack of idealism and compassion (the Republicans’ worry.) But carefulness in a leader is a beautiful thing. That is the message of “Eisenhower 1956,” David A. Nichols’s history of how Ike, the old hero of World War II, resisted great pressure to commit U.S. forces in the Suez Crisis and, later, the rebellion in Hungary. The whole book is a celebration of restraint. “Eisenhower the military man was not militaristic,” writes Mr. Nichols. “He did not think that there were military solutions to many problems.” He was happy to use his personal “military credibility” in deterring the Soviets but viewed war with them “as a last, not a first resort” and often talked about disarmament.
[….]
Two closing thoughts on the modern impulse toward US international activism. The past 10 years, as a nation, we have lost sight to some degree of the idea of Beaconism—that it is our role, job and even delight to be an example of freedom, a symbol of it, a beacon, but not necessarily a bringer of it or an insister on it for others. Two long, messy, unending wars suggest this change in attitude has not worked so well. Maybe we could discuss this in the coming presidential campaign.
The GOP needs to return towards it old foreign policy roots. Strong on defense doesn’t mean war without end. If we commit to war, it should be massive, brutal and quick. We should only occupy a nation if it’s in the economic interest of teh US. If we take ove ra nation with resources American companies should get priority in contracts, not the French or Chinese.
Strong on defense doesn’t mean war with everyone.
