REPLIES TO THE CURRENT QUESTION

Our question last week was:

Obama has been strongly criticized for a weak, too-late response on Iran.  But do you think the GOP offers a valid foreign-policy alternative, and why?

Here are your answers.  The name of a writer is included only if he or she actually placed a name at the end of the message.  Otherwise, we assume the writer wished anonymity and "name withheld" is inserted.

Right now, I have yet to hear the Republicans voice a coherent vision of how they would pursue our relationships with other governments. 
 
Three clichés we could use to describe how I wish we would lead come to mind –

Dance with the one who brought you.

Walk softly and carry a big stick.

The buck stops here.

What do I envision with these three disjointed thoughts?  The first looks at the shabby way we have treated our allies over the past several months.  President Obama has treated Great Britain, Israel, Colombia, Canada, Poland, eastern Europe as a whole and other of our friends as lepers as he has forged friendships with our enemies.  This is a disgrace and our lack of loyalty will long be remembered.  We need to renew our relationships with these countries asap.
 
The second reflects my belief that a true leader in life or in international politics doesn’t have to be a bully, but should not back down from a leadership position either.  There is a reason the United States flourished over the past 300 years; though we may have our faults, for the most part we have exhibited integrity and a moral compass for the rest of the world.  We should not be ashamed of standing for what is right, and this week’s pitiful response to the murder of the Iranian protesters clearly demonstrates the lack of character we currently embrace.
 
The third is closely tied to the first and the second.  We need to realize that with our power, with our leadership comes responsibilities.  If we negotiate with the Polish government about the positioning of missiles to protect them and us from attack, then we honor those commitments.  We cannot be leaving our allies high and dry to advance our own short term objectives.  Again, the shameful treatment that Secretary of State Clinton and the Obama State Department have given so many of our allies, who stuck their necks out to help us, is embarrassing.
 
The nice thing about doing what is right is that you never have to try to fabricate reasons for what you do. 
 
Robert Bush

 

I am becoming more and more disappointed in the GOP and its ability to make any kind of intelligent argument for anything. If Republicans can't keep their pants on long enough to do the business at hand, what chance do they have of taking any considered foreign policy stand? I am no angel, but somehow I have been able to keep my eye on the ball for way too many years without having to go party with some young chick when things get a little difficult. Outside of that, mimic Reagan.

James Birdsall

 

It’s hard to imagine any alternative policy worse than one the milquetoast in chief is pursuing.  However, the larger question is whether the opposition should be offering one at all?  Democrats are very fond of conducting their own foreign policy when in opposition and they have been appropriately criticized for it.  The nation needs to speak with one voice to the world.  That one voice is, for better or worse, the president.  Having 535 secretaries of state makes the job of the president 535 times more difficult.  
 
However, it is entirely appropriate for Republicans to criticize the current policy and to offer an alternative.  John McCain’s criticism of Obama’s weak response to the Iranian upheaval is spot on.  Additionally, I’m sure there is quite a bit of criticism of Obama’s policy toward Israel by Republican and Democrat congressmen, albeit out of the spotlight.
 
But, what exactly is the Republican foreign policy alternative?  Is it the assertive pursuit of American interests as defined by Ronald Reagan and the first term of George W. Bush, or is it the “realist” school of accommodation as defined by Colin Powell, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft and the second term of GWB? Certainly, in dealing with foreign adversaries, we sometimes use a carrot and sometimes a stick, but what is the image we wish to project to the world?  
 
Our guiding principle should be SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM.  If you want peace, prepare for war.  I quote the Latin of Roman military writer Publius to illustrate that this is received wisdom, not something new.  It has been quoted by many over the course of the centuries, including Churchill and Reagan.  There is a wealth of wisdom in this simple phrase.  If you wish to discourage North Korean atomic aggression you build a missile defense system.  If you want to stop Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons you don’t ask them to stop, you build the F-22, sail the fleet up the Persian Gulf, and shoot down their test missiles.  One of the great lessons of World War II was that Hitler would have been finished very early if the French and British had marched on Germany the second after Nazi rearmament started.  Project weakness and you invite attack.  Project strength and you will be feared.  Sadly, our current student of history in chief cut class the day that lesson was given.
 
Alan Weick

 

Unfortunately, it is NOT in the Republican job option to respond to Iran as a "party."  We jumped all over the Democratic Party members who undermined President Bush's authority overseas for eight years.

BUT it is the duty of all elected officials and citizens to take the time and interest and remind (at every opportunity) this man that he has been elected president of the United States and represents all of us.

The way he does not listen to any one but only to those he believes are important tells me he really doesn't like most of us and doesn't care if he represents us - he  just needed those votes.  He is ruling, not governing; he has no interest in the rule of law or the divisions of power as set forth in the constitution. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and we have handed it over to a man who prefers to be a ruler rather than a leader.

(name withheld)

 

I think this question inferentially highlights a really significant problem in our nation today.  Somehow, we have politicized a whole bunch of stuff that in the not too distant past was exempt from politics.  "Foreign policy," the entity, not the practice, can only be carried out by the man in the White House as the representative and spokesman for the people. To dilute his voice with partisan politics is the quickest way to do us all harm.  

With hindsight, the political and foreign policy disaster of our Vietnam involvement  started the decay in our bipartisan national foreign policy identity.  The early Reagan years and the days immediately after September 11, were momentary blips in the steady downward slope of bipartisanship in our dealings with the world.  Our present antagonistic bickering on foreign policy inside the beltway by the careerists masquerading as our representatives and senators is simply the result of our accepting inadequacy at all levels of government.  The mere statement that the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is John Kerry conjures up images of impending doom.  Probably the last Democratic Senator with a clear understanding of foreign policy was Georgia's Sam Nunn.  

A good friend once said, "Ignorance is correctable but dumb is forever!"  President Obama by all accounts is an intelligent man. Evidence to this point shows that he is incredibly ignorant on foreign policy.  If the quotation is correct and assessments of President Obama's intellect are accurate, there is hope.  His problem is that he is so far down the learning curve that he requires a cram course from an able instructor who may not exist within his small circle of advisors. Certainly, making Hillary Clinton his principle advisor on the topic was a huge mistake.  Her qualifications for her job appear to be similar to those of any other international tourist.  In terms of real foreign policy experience she has similar qualifications to her daughte, Chelsea, since they mostly traveled the world together.

After tap-dancing around the question, my answer is an unqualified "no." We should and must support foreign policy initiatives of the incumbent in the White House.  Republicans should offer advice and suggestions and speak out during debates on what those initiatives should be, but, once a course is set, our responsibility is to present a unified front to the world by supporting the president.  This will also show the Democrats how it should be done.

Don Newell
Vancouver, WA