The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

DeVore the Dove

Republican Barbara Boxer-challenger Chuck DeVore wrote an Opinion in the Washington Times this morning in which he discusses the need for a conservative foreign policy based on more than simple opposition to Obama. His recommendation focuses on the need for modernizing the military through research, technology, and more effective spending. Overall, he plays a realist tone -- basing power on military, economic, and political strength.

His points on modernization of the military are pretty uncontroversial, but what can raise an eyebrow or two is his position on Afghanistan, where he says:

"As a result of culture and geography, Mr. Obama's Afghan surge will likely fall short of its objectives while spending $40 billion per year. Employing conventional forces in pursuit of terrorists and guerrilla forces is always an expensive proposition. Attempting to build nations on soil not yet fertile to the concepts of democracy and national unity is even more problematic. Neither is needed to produce the result we want: deadly consequences for attacking Americans. This can be done with special forces, drones and better human intelligence." (emphasis added)

His objective in Afghanistan ("the result we want") is "deadly consequences for attacking Americans." For that, he says, we do not need to "employ conventional forces."

In light of the Christmas Day Crotch bomber, where the reports indicate that the suspect attempted to blow himself up, I find it surprising that DeVore would consider "deadly consequences" as the objective for the American military in Afghanistan. Moreover, suicide attacks and attempted suicide attacks in Afghanistan against American soldiers number in the hundreds annually. Hence, many terrorists are not deterred by the threat of retaliation. Deadly consequences are not our objective, but rather, they are the objective of the enemy. If his "result we want" is questionable, then so are his recommended tactics for achieving that objective (special forces, drones, intelligence, not more conventional troops).

Given DeVore's support from the conservative grassroots, his non-interventionist position could indicate a switch in party position as President Obama is approaching a year of ownership of this war. Liberal Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer also opposes the Afghan surge.  His primary opponent, Carly Fiorina -- who is often called a "RINO" -- supports the president's surge. The Republican consensus thus far has been to support the surge.

View all comments (6) | Leave a comment

Red Phillips| 1.13.10 @ 8:54AM

So Mr. O'Connell, are you suggesting that our objective should be nation building? Good luck with that.

Chris| 1.13.10 @ 9:21AM

It's cheaper and more efficient if we wipe out a regime every 10 years that supports or allows terrorists in their midst instead of the stupidity in Iraq or Afghanistan. DeVore is right.

I assume that Mr. O'Connell doesn't support stopping Muslim immigration or severely limiting flights from Muslim countries.

Sean| 1.13.10 @ 11:05AM

Devore is right. Just look up Able Danger where the special forces had terrorist cells targeted before Sept. 11th including two of the three in the US, but were not given the go ahead to take them out. To me that would have been a much cheaper way to dealing with people that want to attack us.

rt| 1.13.10 @ 11:56AM

Obama's half-assed plan in Afghanistan will not work. He is not there to win, but to pacify, thats no way to win a war. If we are not going there to win, why risk the lives of our brave American soldiers in the first place?

Devore is basically saying that we must go there to win with minimum casualties. So I'm with Devore anytime before I even would consider RINO Fiorina.

Sheila| 1.13.10 @ 2:15PM

My husband and I represent two sides of the "conservative grassroots." He supported Bush's Iraq policy and supports the increase of conventional troops in Afghanistan (but not Obama's specific policy." I support neither. Ideally, I would say "nuke them all." Realistically, I am much more in concert with Chuck Devore here. The neocon credo of exporting democracy and Bush's "we are all the same" pabulum just doesn't wash. People and cultures and religions are different. As an American, I don't really give a fig about building democracy in a dark ages, tribal muslim society. I do support deadly consequences for attacking Americans. The difference here is the author's definition of what deadly consequences means. Our care for the civilian populace and/or public opinion has critically hindered rendering any real consequences at all. War is not chess, Mr. O'Connell.

SV| 1.18.10 @ 2:50PM

As a grassroots "Tea Party" supporter of Chuck DeVore for US Senate, I must agree with his assessment of the lack of value in spending taxpayer money on nation building and policing the world, while at the same time putting our troops in harm's way. Spending control needs to be the number one priority.

More:
http://septvote.blogspot.com/2.....nding.html

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

More Blog Posts by Brian O'Connell

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/01/13/devore-the-dove

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley | 5.25.12

The Wisconsin Turning Point

Peter Ferrara | 5.23.12

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi | 5.25.12

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer | 5.25.12

Follow Me

Jay D. Homnick | 5.25.12

A Test of National Honor

Hal G.P. Colebatch | 5.25.12

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

William Tucker | 5.25.12

The Great Debate

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.24.12

ADVERTISEMENT