Thursday, May 05, 2011

Palin Begins Serious Foreign-Policy Discussion

This is a very interesting development. While Palin's domestic policy stands have been very clear, her facility with foreign policy has always been light.

That has changed.

...combined with her taking on Peter Schweizer as an adviser, argues for a more Reaganesque than progressive-activist view.

She outlined her thoughts on use-of-force.

First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake, period.

Second, 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 send our military and stretch out the mission with an open-ended and ill-defined mission. Nation-building, a nice idea in theory, but it’s not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.

And third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending our troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly, concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent to battle. Period.

Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side by our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and command of the American officers.

And fifth, sending our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual.

Very good.

HT: Hot Air

5 comments:

  1. "more Reaganesque than progressive-activist view..."

    Yeah, that turned out well. Bloated federal defense budgets; a Star Wars initiative that went no where; the Iran-Contra affair, supporting anti-communist dictators, etc.


    "And third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending our troops into harm’s way...And fifth, sending our armed forces should be the last resort."

    Lebanon, anyone?


    "Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that we use overwhelming force."

    Barry Goldwater re-dux!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anony shows all the usual intellectual depth of the LeftOBrainless.

    ReplyDelete
  3. uh oh, Dad, look at this

    http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dad29--My, my, my, such a witty retort. My statement at 8:26 a.m. is FACT. Deny it all you want.


    Reagan--I do not negotiate with terrorists, but I am willing to conduct business with them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side by our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and command of the American officers."

    In other words and Marquis de La Fayette and Thaddeus Kosciuszko, screw you.

    American soldiers fought under British command at various times in World War II, British soldiers fought under American command all the time, I think that alliance worked out pretty well.

    ReplyDelete