President Obama’s decision that the U.S. should respond militarily to Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons has raised an important and long-overdue debate among conservatives about foreign policy.
The neo-conservative position supports an activist foreign policy role in which the U.S. aggressively uses its wealth and firepower to promote freedom and democracy. This nation-building, democracy-planting philosophy dominated the Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks.
President Obama’s foreign policy has been guided by, well, frankly it isn’t clear what guides Obama’s foreign policy. Nor have we ever heard anyone try to define it, even from his strongest supporters. In Donald Rumsfeld’s terminology, you might call it a “known unknown.”
By contrast, conservatives have generally supported U.S. interventionism as our last resort, not our first. They believe the U.S. should attempt to avoid what Thomas Jefferson called “entangling alliances” unless there is a compelling reason to get involved. That’s not isolationism; it might rather be called “reluctant engagement.”
What limits should guide that approach?
The neo-conservative position supports an activist foreign policy role in which the U.S. aggressively uses its wealth and firepower to promote freedom and democracy. This nation-building, democracy-planting philosophy dominated the Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks.
President Obama’s foreign policy has been guided by, well, frankly it isn’t clear what guides Obama’s foreign policy. Nor have we ever heard anyone try to define it, even from his strongest supporters. In Donald Rumsfeld’s terminology, you might call it a “known unknown.”
By contrast, conservatives have generally supported U.S. interventionism as our last resort, not our first. They believe the U.S. should attempt to avoid what Thomas Jefferson called “entangling alliances” unless there is a compelling reason to get involved. That’s not isolationism; it might rather be called “reluctant engagement.”
What limits should guide that approach?
- When should the U.S. intervene in other countries? The usual response of “when it’s in U.S. interests” is right as far as it goes, but that notion is much too vague to actually convey much meaning.
- What is the role, if any, of foreign aid? The role has shifted from helping the good guys to trying to influence the bad guys. As with Egypt, it isn’t clear we get anything for those taxpayer dollars.
- Under what circumstances can or will U.S. force be used? Obama’s answer seems to be when he’s under a lot of international or political pressure to do so. But that’s not a good guide for when to put U.S. lives and money at risk.
- How far should the president go in prosecuting a foreign war before needing the consent of Congress? A sticky issue with broad constitutional implications: the president conducts foreign policy but only Congress can declare war—and fund it. At least Obama is going to Congress this time, but he dodged such oversight when he attacked Libya.
If conservatives believe that government should have a limited and clearly defined role in the lives of its citizens, why shouldn’t that principle apply to our government’s involvement in other nations? Perhaps a robust foreign policy debate will help clarify conservative thinking.