Rick Perry's humble foreign policy?
By W. JAMES ANTLE III | 9/1/11 12:03 AM EDT
Texas Gov. Rick Perry told the Veterans of Foreign Wars that as president, he would not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. “I do not believe America should fall subject to a foreign policy of military adventurism,” he said, vowing to send troops into battle only when “our vital national interests are threatened.”
Before concluding this signals a shift in Republican foreign policy thinking, consider that the previous Texas governor could have given much the same speech more than a decade ago. Back then, George W. Bush was promising to tie military interventions to vital national interests. Bush chided President Bill Clinton for going to war without an “exit strategy.” Most notably, he called for a “humble foreign policy.”
This isn’t exactly how the Bush administration unfolded, though. Much of that had to do with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which obviously forced Bush into action. But the discrepancy between Bush’s campaign rhetoric and his actions as president weren’t entirely unpredictable.
While Bush complained during the campaign that “one of the problems that we have in the military is we’re in a lot of places in the world,” he actually supported most of the Clinton administration’s interventions. “I thought the president made the right decision in joining NATO in bombing Serbia,” Bush said. He backed the Kosovo war and stepping up involvement in Iraq — often in the same speeches where he criticized Clinton for meddling too much.
Similarly, Perry argues against excessive American unilateralism but at the same time promises to go it alone when necessary. “It’s not in our interest to go it alone,” Perry remarked, only to later say: “We cannot concede the moral authority of our nation to multi-lateral debating societies.”
Perry is taking foreign policy advice from Doug Feith and Donald Rumsfeld, neither of whom is a shrinking violet when it comes to the projection of American military force. In fact, to the extent we know of his foreign policy brain trust, it’s arguably more hawkish than Bush’s in 2000.
So why is Perry warning against military adventurism? Like Bush, Perry is seeking the presidential nomination of a Republican Party divided on foreign policy. President Barack Obama’s military interventions, like Clinton’s before him, have newly hatched Republican doves in Congress.
Bush had to contend with Pat Buchanan, a conservative candidate who opposed a large military role overseas, first in the Republican primaries and later as a third-party candidate. Bush wanted to appeal to Buchanan’s supporters. This time around, Perry is running against fellow Texan Ron Paul, an even more outspoken foe of foreign wars.
Under this scenario, the easiest thing to do is stress areas of agreement among Republicans: No U.S. troops serving under foreign command. Foreign policy based on vital national interests. Secure the nation and act according to our strategic interests.
Other than the veiled implication that the current Democratic administration isn’t doing those things, such statements leave a lot of room for interpretation. As a result, Perry’s foreign policy speeches are no more useful in predicting what he would do as president than Bush’s were.
W. James Antle III is associate editor of The American Spectator.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62431.html#ixzz1Wgs8biNE
| 
