After five years in the White House, President Obama’s only foreign policy principle seems to hinge on whether taking some action (or inaction) will help or hurt Democrats’ chances in the upcoming election.
Senator Rand Paul has tried to counter this confusion by delivering a speech on the Senate floor focusing on the current mess in the Middle East—a mess he believes is largely of our own making—and outlined at least five important principles that should guide U.S. foreign policy decisions.
1. Well-intended interventionism has unintended consequences
Throughout the speech Paul said that U.S. intervention in Iraq, Libya and Syria have had unintended consequences. Yes, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar Assad were all deplorable despots, but Paul asserts they “were no threats to us.”
U.S. intervention in those countries has destabilized the region, he says, and has made the U.S. less safe, not more safe as the interventionists promised.
2. The U.S. should only go to war when vital U.S. interests are attacked or threatened
The term “interests” can be broadly or narrowly defined, and it’s important to leave it that way to allow a president to react to particular situations.
In this case Paul identifies what he thinks the U.S. interests are: our embassies and consulates, and it has threatened to attack the U.S. and kill Americans. And so he favors striking the Islamic state, or ISIS.
3. The burden of proof that U.S. interests are at stake is on the pro-war advocates
Paul’s point here is that the default foreign policy position should be avoiding war if at all possible. If the president or other elected officials believe the country should declare war, the burden should be on those opting for war to explain why.
George H.W. Bush faced this challenge when he tried to persuade the country and our allies that vital U.S. interests were at stake when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Bush’s problem was that the primary U.S. interest in Kuwait was oil, but he did not want to claim he was sending U.S. troops into battle for that reason, as opponents were asserting.
4. When America goes to war it should only be to win—and win quickly and decisively
I think almost every president has said this since the Vietnam War. Bush 41 won the Gulf War quickly, but George W. Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were neither as quick or clean. Or you might say that the initial invasion was successful, but we failed miserably at the subsequent nation-building effort.
But under Obama’s ISIS plan, if you can call it a “plan,” it’s again unclear what a victory would look like and how to know when it was achieved—thus utterly failing this principle.
5. A president needs to get congressional support before sending troops to fight
Finally, Paul hits the constitutional theme that the president needs congressional approval if he is going to war. Obama claims he doesn’t need it, but wanted it anyway—to cover his backside. In other words, Obama did the right thing but for all the wrong reasons.
And he has once again flip-flopped from his many speeches as a senator and presidential candidate. Paul says, “I would like for President Obama to re-read some of the speeches of candidate Obama.” Indeed.
The primary point of Paul’s speech was to dissuade Congress and the president from arming Syrian rebels. He failed; both chambers voted to do so. Let’s hope Obama’s leadership is better in war than it has been on domestic policy (e.g., growing the economy, Obamacare, reducing deficit spending, etc.), but don’t hold your breath.
At least now Paul has outlined some foreign policy principles that could serve as a starting point for the presidential debates that will begin next year.