When it comes to foreign policy, it can be difficult these days to distinguish between Democrats and Republicans. Both parties are advocates of big government internationalism. Their differences on a range of issues—from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to Iran and North Korea—are more stylistic than substantive. And when it comes to the big strategic questions (e.g., For what purpose does the U.S. engage in foreign affairs?) the major parties are in lockstep. Both subscribe to a Wilsonian, liberal international agenda of democracy promotion and nation building with little regard for cost—or the Constitution.
A reformulation of American foreign policy is long overdue and the Tea Party movement is in a unique position to expand the ongoing national debate on federal spending into Washington’s costly and overly ambitious grand strategy.
The excesses of the Obama administration and the 111th Congress galvanized conservatives in the arena of domestic policy. In matters of foreign policy, conservative elites remain divided. Regrettably, much of the conservative and Republican foreign policy establishment has abandoned its role as champion of a realist foreign policy. Still, there are signals that grassroots conservatives may be tiring of Washington’s costly foreign endeavors. A recent survey sponsored by the Afghanistan Study Group found that a majority of conservatives are concerned about the costs of the war in Afghanistan and support a reduction in troops.
Since the end of the Cold War, American statesmen have defined the national interest in far too broad of terms, squandering taxpayer dollars in support of a foreign policy that does not clearly advance America’s core national interests. In FY 2008, Washington provided foreign aid to about 154 countries. Today, the U.S. military has a presence in about 150 countries. The majority of these aid packages and military deployments do little to promote America’s national interests; still, this type of big government internationalism has become unquestioned convention for the Washington foreign policy establishment and conservatives are as guilty as their liberal counterparts in pushing the global welfare state.
Many Republican and Democratic policymakers conflate American diplomatic, economic, and military primacy with omnipotence. As a result, they have consistently failed to reconcile America’s desired end states with its available means—eschewing important economic realities such as the $14 trillion national debt while failing to make the difficult tradeoffs often required of effective statesmen. In order to avoid the fate of previous great powers, the United States should adopt an economically sustainable grand strategy that advances a set of more narrowly defined national interests, encourages burden-sharing among its allies, and is consistent with the Constitution. More specifically, Washington should reduce its global footprint, keep its military power in abeyance, and discharge that power only in defense of the national interest.
The sole aim of Washington’s international engagement should be the preservation of American political and economic liberty—not to remake the world in its image. In his book, A Foreign Policy for Americans, former U.S. Senator Robert Taft argued, “I do not believe it is a selfish goal for us to insist that the overriding purpose of all American foreign policy should be the maintenance of the liberty and peace of our people of the United States…”
Any reformulation of American foreign policy must begin by redefining the national interest. Three pillars should comprise America’s national interest: (1) the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United States, (2) the safety, security, and liberty of United States citizens, and (3) the ability to conduct trade and engage in commerce.
Detractors are quick to label any reappraisal of American foreign policy which calls for reduced commitments as isolationist or alarmist; invoking Neville Chamberlain and the appeasement of Nazi Germany in the 1930s is a favorite tactic. But this is approach is anything but isolationist. It advocates free trade, a more targeted set of alliances, and a manageable number of deployments. In fact, Washington should continue to maintain its unparalleled advantage in military power, which can certainly be done at much less than $500 billion a year.
American military power will remain the ultimate guarantor of U.S. national security and will remain the most important instrument of grand strategy. Diplomatic and economic credibility require a military force that can defend its trade routes, keep its commitments, and make good on its threats. The use of force—war—is costly both in human and economic terms and should be used only in direct defense of America’s core national interests—not for the purposes of nation-building, peacekeeping or democracy promotion.
Barring a major crisis, it is unlikely that the 112th Congress will focus much on foreign policy, so the 2012 presidential race will provide the first real opportunity for conservatives to articulate an alternative to big government internationalism. Serious candidates will need to move beyond slogans like “strong national defense” and “support for our armed forces.” Right now, it is hard to envision the top-tier candidates differing much from each other, or the president for that matter, on a host of national security issues: 1) Afghanistan, 2) Iraq, 3) Iran, 4) broader Middle East policy, 4) NATO, and 5) China. Take NATO, for example: an unquestioned mainstay of the foreign policy establishment. Why should Washington continue to subsidize European security through an alliance that was established, in the words NATO’s first Secretary General Lord Ismay, “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”? Given the absence of the Soviet threat, and the paucity of support provided by most NATO members to America’s current wars, it’s time for America to reevaluate its role in such archaic security alliances.
Americans are tired of and can no longer afford costly and unnecessary foreign interventions. With the national debate now focused squarely on the scale and scope of the federal government, now is the time to initiate a serious debate on American foreign policy. And the Tea Party movement should be leading the charge.
Thomas M. Skypek is a Washington Fellow at the National Review Institute, a former Nuclear Scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and a national security consultant in Washington, DC. The views expressed herein are solely those of the author.
