Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Sarah Palin's 5 Point approach to Foreign Policy

Sarah Palin presented the following 5 Point approach to Foreign Policy Tuesday night in a speech at Colorado Christian University

From Sarahpac:
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 stretch out our military with open-ended and ill-defined missions. Nation building is a nice idea in theory, but it is 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 troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly and concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent into battle. Period.

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


Fifth, sending in 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. When it makes sense, when it’s appropriate, we will provide them with material support to help them win their own freedom.

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

Look at the guy sitting behind SP. The look on his face is "We paid her HOW much to speak? I'm so bored..."

Right Wingnut said...

Anon,

Dumbshit, she didn't receive a speaking fee.

Anonymous said...

Revolution, thanks for posting this. I am sure I will regret writing a comment as soon as the trolls, led by...,find this thread but I, unlike some others, actually want to have pertinent discussions.

Anyway, the timing of this 5 point Foreign Policy, the Palin Doctrine, is really important to this discussion. A few days ago, on a different site, I was discussing how President Obama has hijacked a Neo-Con stance on foreign policy and with his latest success could possibly have already won this issue for the upcoming 2012 Presidential election. Now, like clockwork, Palin issues her policy...which is in stark contrast to President Obama's. She also has parted ways with her longtime foreign policy advisers and has replaced them with Peter Schweizer, someone more akin to her new outlook on American foreign policy...which is not much different than her previous, slightly more hawkish stance, but different enough to argue against Obama's current grip on foreign policy.

What's interesting about these 5 points are that they lie smack dab in the middle between neo-con and isolationism. I believe you are beginning to see a more centrist Sarah Palin and I also believe you are seeing yet another clue that she is indeed running for President...if she weren't why introduce a doctrine? Why clean house of your part-time, contracted advisers and replace them with a full-time staff adviser?

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

Also, to note, Sarah Palin is the only plausible, possible, candidate that has distanced herself from the Bush/Obama foreign policy. All of the other possible candidates are deep in the muck of Bush/Obama neo-conservatism. Sarah Palin has created the scenario to argue against President Obama's foreign policy in the upcoming elections...as long as she can stay on point.

How long will it take before the others follow suit?

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

Jersey, I too think this is another step towards a Palin run. But it looks as if Palin is being led by her advisors in what to say, rather than having her own FP ideas/direction.

At any rate, I wonder how solid her FP will be, if she can change so much in a mere few weeks. It was only a month or so ago that she was calling for TROOPS in Libya, at the very beginning of trouble. Not just air-strikes, troops. I thought it was reckless and premature, if you recall. That's why it's hard to believe "THE PALIN DOCTRINE' (re-worded Powell Doctrine) is actually coming from Palin, and not her new advisor.


-Martha

Anonymous said...

I'm in absolute agreement with Victor Davis Hanson at NR.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/266292/bin-laden-fallout-victor-davis-hanson

Well worth the read.

With this successful Osama capture, now is not the time to pull back, but to finish the job in Afghanistan, Iraq, and deal with Pakistan, and any other problems. Al Queda has been almost decimated. It's utterly foolish to stop now, and become suddenly and needlessly hesitant.

It's a great opportunity, and NOT the time to shrink from using American power appropriately. The world is better off when America is the preeminent power, and uses it's power judiciously.

I guess that puts me squarely in the neo-con camp.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

Obama deserves great credit in the capture of Osama, but it is Bush/Cheney who set up the right framework to deal with 9-11. IMO, they are now entirely vindicated, and thank heaven we had someone at the helm to do what needed to be done.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

Martha, can you provide a link where Palin called for troops on the ground and not just air-strikes? I pay pretty close attention to Palin's positions and I cannot recall a time when she called for troops on the ground. I'm not being snarky...I'm just curious if I missed something.

I don't think she is being led by her advisers as much as she is doing what everybody recommended that she do...bone up on the issues. If you recall, way before she was selected VP she questioned the reasonings for going to war with Iraq...she was eviscerated for that question during the campaign.

Advisers advise...that's their job, she parted ways, on good terms, with her two former foreign policy advisers and now is seeking a different route due to their differing viewpoints. As far as the Palin Doctrine/Powell Doctrine issue...you know as well as I do that that is just an attempt to delegitimize her new foreign policy.

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

Martha, you are correct, President Obama does deserve great credit, even if it took him 16 hours to make up his mind, in fact I like President Obama a little more now than I did last week. I also agree that President Bush is vindicated, unfortunately...the ruling class...the MSM doesn't see it that way and won't be reporting it that way...so once again for President Bush...this like a lot of his efforts will be a thankless victory that may be well received in history books about 50 years from now...if he's lucky.

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

Martha, I missed your 10:13 comment...your last sentence is what struck me most from that comment. I am assuming you mentioned that due to my statement that Palin's "Doctrine" falls smack dab in the middle of neo-conservatism and isolationism...paleo-conservatism.

If you actually read her 5 points, not implying that you haven't, you will see that the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan fall right into what she believes are justified uses of the military...well Afghanistan is starting to look questionable but there is a clearly, defined mission that her Doctrine could support.

It's actually a pretty brilliant position to take because their is a grey line as to what could be acceptable and what isn't...it creates a middle of the ground, open-minded outlook on American foreign policy while also creating an opportunity to publicly denounce a slightly different foreign policy.

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

JR. Can we just call a flip flop a flip flop?

Anonymous said...

Anon, we could if you can point one out?

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

Jersey, March 5th:

On Saturday, Sarah Palin appeared on FOX News' Justice with Judge Jeanine and was asked if she thought Obama should send troops into Libya or at least make it a no fly zone.

Palin, who all along has stated that NATO and our allies should look at establishing a no-fly zone reiterated that fact to Judge Jeanine.

"Certainly a no fly zone," Palin said. "I hate to say, jeez, more troops on the ground. You know send more of our brave young men and women over there in Libya. When yes, 41 years of Gadhafi. He’s got to go."

http://www.examiner.com/sarah-palin-in-national/palin-continues-to-push-no-fly-zone-over-libya

-Martha

Anonymous said...

Hey, isn't it wonderful that Palin's foreing policy position evolved, just like Romney's choice policy?

GetReal said...

A coherent and reasonable "Doctrine." Not bad, Palin. I don't care if its different than something she said before, she's GOT to increase her knowledge, improve and grow if she's going to have a serious political future, and this is a solid step in the right direction.

Romney was once a political neophyte in over his head (1994) and some people will hold it against him forever. I don't think that's right and I don't want to treat Sarah Palin the same way.

Anonymous said...

Martha, I think the examiner decided to place a period where a question mark should be. I remember that interview and she clear mused...Do we really send in more ground troops? Either way, she was more a proponent of a no-fly zone but I'm sure you will probably disagree and again either way Palin is doing what everybody expected from her...talk policy and bone up on the issues. What specifically about her 5 Point Policy do you dislike, Martha?

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

GetReal, thanks for the honesty and I can agree with the sentiment of your comment but I do have a couple problems with some of the particulars. Palin has been growing since the '08 elections, it's just everything she has said is held under a microscope and scrutinized both fairly and unfairly. As much as people claim she needed to bone up on the issues(and still say she needs to) those same people need to open their eyes and see the strides she has continuously made since '08.

Also, to suggest Palin is a political neophyte in the sense that Romney was back in 1994 is kind of perplexing to me. To compare a former City Councilwoman and Mayor and Gas/Oil Commissioner and Governor and VP Candidate to Romney's first unsuccessful public, political campaign is both disingenuous and dumbfounding.

I always liked you Ron, you've always been fair...but c'mon?

jerseyrepublican

Right Wingnut said...

Great point JR. Her detractors work overtime to try to cook up phony controversies in order to distract casual observers from her substantive positions on the issues. They know that the majority of the American people agree with her on most things. The latest example is the lie being propagated by the MSM that she didn't give Obama credit for the death of Bin Ladin. They purposely left out the quote to make it look like she only mentioned Bush. They, of course, don't want people to focus on the substantive policy positions she laid out in that speech. I like Ron too, but he knows better.

By the way, if Mitt becomes a serious threat to Obummer, they will do the same thing to him.

Doug NYC GOP said...

The "Palin-Not-Thanking the President" kerfuffle is a bogus scandal, partially self induced and self serving in my view.

Palin was extremely cheap in her "thanking" the President. That was a concious decision on her part, both in her speech and FB post. Since we ALL know she's no dummy, that kind of reaction was tailor made as bait for the MSM to slam her, providing in turn, another oppurtunity for Palinista's cry "Foul."

It's like a little game they play with each other.

Palin didn't go low road, but she could have chosen a higher one.

Anonymous said...

Palin will always be too shallow to take the high road.

Romney 2012!

Right Wingnut said...

Doug, She said "we thank our president." What more do you want? The MSM purposely left that quote out.

By the way, it sounds like Obama was forced into acting on this. There's no way he could done otherwise with the intelligence available. Hillary or someone else in the know would have clobbered him for it eventually. Good for Obama, but he's not the one that made it happen. It sounds like Panetta deserves more credit than he does. Let's not cheerlead too much for Obama until we have more of the facts.

Revolution 2010 said...

You're welcome JR.

I only posted it out of guilt because RWN has been on siesta and there had been no Palin posts.

RWN needs to step up to the plate, now that Palin is in the news lately.

Right Wingnut said...

Bos, I haven't ruled it out. I saved the invite you sent me after I deleted my account. I just get worn out dealing with some of the clowns. You are not one of them.

GetReal said...

I'm not comparing Palin NOW to Romney in '94 - I'm comparing Palin when most people first learned of her existence to Romney in '94. Both have improved and both are still slammed over first impressions. I thought I was being pretty fair.

Romney was a political neophyte when he took on Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts - Palin wasn't a neophyte in 2008 but she was in a comparative sense. I don't think I need to tell you that there's a big difference between running in Wasilla and running in the national spotlight, dealing with issues you never had to address before.

Both were in over their head at the time. My comparing her to Romney is far from an insult to anyone who is familiar with my political views. Romney, like Palin, lost that race but the next time Romney ran, he won.

Whatever I'm supposed to "know better" about I'll chalk up for now to miscommunication.

Doug NYC GOP said...

RWN - No one is cheerleading - As I said the other day - Congratulate and move on.

Palin played it her way, that's her choice.

ellie said...

RWN, sorry to burst your little bubble, but Romney is already a serious threat to Obama. They are going after him, and their stuff ain't sticking.

ellie said...

And I don't know if you've notices a few little polls done lately, but Romney is kicking butt and taking names.

Doug NYC GOP said...

Ellie,

You are right, the anti-Romney machine is ginning up. I laugh when people have to remind us that he'll get the same media treatment. Duh! They all will. We don't expect a free ride.

Right Wingnut said...

Doug,

Huckabee won't get the treatment....unless he wins the nomination.

Anonymous said...

GetReal, I still do not completely agree with your statement but I will concede that the majority of my disagreement with you was based on a miscommunication. Still I don't think you can compare Palin in '08 to Romney in 1994. Sure she is from a small town in Wasilla but she was a Governor in 2008 and in 1994, Romney had never run for any public office so I still do not think there is an accurate comparison but either way I appreciate your input and at least it's honest and debatable...which is 1000 times better than most of the comments, about Palin, around here.

jerseyrepublican

GetReal said...

Romney was running for Senator of Massachusetts, not VP of the United States, which is why I felt their experience level was somewhat equatable for the races they were running at the time. Thanks for the reasonable discourse, JR.

GetReal said...

Just to correct myself, he was running for United States Senator of Massachusetts, but my point about it not being a national race still stands. Palin was in a bigger race so the standards to run were higher. I still contend that they were in similar (not identical) positions.