Senator and Republican presidential prospect Rand Paul gave a
highly anticipated speech today at the Heritage Foundation, asking
his fellow Republicans and citizens to fundamentally rethink
American foreign policy. Appealing to the theory of George Kennan
and the practice of Ronald Reagan, the junior senator from Kentucky
advocated a thoughtful but firm policy of containment to balance
legitimate concerns about foreign threats posed by radical jihad in
particular with conservative ideas. In
his words, “I’d argue that a more restrained foreign policy is
the true conservative foreign policy, as it includes two basic
tenets of true conservatism: respect for the Constitution and
fiscal discipline.”
Politically, this stance could be interpreted as part of Paul’s
larger project to simultaneously win over ideological
conservatives, who feel they lack a voice in Republican leadership,
and woo younger and independent voters, who do not see a place for
themselves under the GOP tent.
Senator Paul’s remarks began with a specific focus on the threat
of radical Islam, but gradually expanded to a discussion of
containment policy, famously outlined in Kennan’s “Long Telegram”
from Moscow, which Paul proffered as the foundation for a new
American foreign policy. The invocation of Reagan, made on his
102nd birthday, was thoughtful in tone but tactically
aggressive, a challenge to the neo-conservative claim on his
legacy:
Jack Matlock, one of Reagan’s national security advisors, wrote,
“Reagan’s Soviet policy had more in common with Kennan’s thinking
than the policy of any of Reagan’s predecessors.” … Reagan’s
foreign policy was much closer to what I am advocating than what we
have today. The former chairman of the American Conservative Union
[and current President of the National Rifle Association*] David
Keene noted that Reagan’s policy was much less interventionist than
the presidents of both parties who came right before him and after
him.
The rub of Senator Paul’s speech, however, was an outline of
concrete, albeit broad, policy changes he would make to move
America toward prudent containment grounded in conservative
principle:
Since the Korean War, Congress has ignored its responsibility to
restrain the president. Congress has abdicated its role in
declaring war.
What would a foreign policy look like that tried to strike a
balance? First, it would have less soldiers stationed overseas and
less bases. Instead of large, limitless land wars in multiple
theaters, we would target our enemy and strike with lethal
force.
We would not presume that we build nations nor would we presume
that we have the resources to build nations. Many of the
countries formed after WWI are collections of tribal regions that
have never been governed by a central government and may, in fact,
be ungovernable.
When we must intervene with force, we should attempt to
intervene in cooperation with the host government.
Intervention against the will of another nation such as
Afghanistan or Libya would require a declaration of war by
Congress. Such constitutional obstacles purposefully make it more
difficult to go to war. That was the Founders’ intention: To make
war less likely.
We did not declare war or authorize force to begin war with
Libya. This is a dangerous precedent. In our foreign policy,
Congress has become not even a rubber stamp but an irrelevancy.
With Libya, the president sought permission from the UN… from NATO…
from the Arab League - everyone but the U.S.
Congress! And how did Congress react? Congress let him get away
with it.
The looming debt crisis will force us to reassess our role in
the world.
Although the political ramifications of this daunting
philosophical discussion are easy to take for granted – for
everything in Washington is political – the ultimate success or
failure of Senator Paul’s new vision hinges on its reception by
Americans of all stations, from the small business around the
corner to the marble halls of power.
*Transcript updated to reflect remarks as
delivered.
