Does the GOP Need a New Foreign Policy? - An FP Roundtable

In the January/February issue of Foreign Policy, Danielle Pletka outlines how the Republican Party should position itself on international affairs in the wake of Mitt Romney's resounding defeat in the 2012 election. "If the GOP is to stand for something more than lower taxes and smaller government" Pletka writes, "it must return to the moral vision of a world in which the United States helps others achieve the freedoms it holds so dear." 

So what's the right path forward for a battered GOP? Here's what contributors to FP's Shadow Government blog had to say about Pletka's argument -- and the global posture the party should adopt in the future.

John Hannah:

Danielle Pletka's thought-provoking piece on the future of foreign policy in the Republican Party deserves more systematic and fulsome treatment than time and space currently allow. Some random reactions will have to suffice for now. That said, I very much look forward to the debate that Pletka invites. It's indeed an important one. The intra-GOP divisions to which she alludes are in some cases deep and wide. Moreover, they frequently appear to touch on matters of first principle that not long ago seemed largely settled -- an apparent shattering of the Reagan-era consensus, the long-term consequences of which I sense may trouble me somewhat more than they do her.

Pletka suggests that the GOP must be a party that believes there are things worth fighting for. Agreed. But what, exactly? Elsewhere, she makes the case for America's "obligation (not merely the occasional inclination) to help others attain the benefits of a free society." What's the connection, if any, between those two important thoughts? And doesn't that go to the heart of the larger problem that seems to be bothering a lot of Americans when it comes to the Republican Party? Not that they don't think we'll use force, but that we've been all too eager to pull the trigger? What's the limiting principle? Where won't we fight and why?

Pletka of course understands this well. She notes the importance of Republicans explaining to the American people "how much can be done consistent with America's deepest principles but without the use of force, without threats, without protectionism, and without breaking the bank." That seems to me an essential task going forward: to restore the public's faith that the GOP is not only the party most willing to stand up and defend America's vital interests in a dangerous world, but also the one that will do so employing the most creative, competent, and forward-looking strategies -- a national security policy that makes the use of force not just the last resort, but almost always unnecessary because of what Pletka calls the exercise of "genuine American leadership that meets challenges before they become threats."

In this regard, perhaps more than Pletka, I tend to think that the GOP will need to engage in a more thorough-going reckoning with the Bush-Cheney years, particularly the Iraq and Afghanistan experiences. Not, as she correctly warns, for the purposes of "killing" that legacy, but rather for an honest accounting of the good, the bad, and the ugly, and the lessons learned. It's necessary for its own sake of course. But it's also important, I think, as part of the task of rebuilding the public's overall confidence in the Republican foreign policy brand.

A few odds and ends. I don't think Pletka mentions free trade and energy policy. The Republicans should own these issues, especially the impending American oil and gas boom. The impact on America's economic strength at home and strategic flexibility abroad promise to be revolutionary if properly and comprehensively exploited.

Finally, it's worth noting that the speed of the GOP comeback will at least in part be determined by what happens in the world between now and 2016. Pletka is harshly critical of President Obama's foreign-policy record. I generally don't disagree. But the fact is that Obama has not suffered some of the mega-disasters that so obviously plagued the administration of Jimmy Carter and made Reagan's critique so innately compelling for the American people. No Iranian hostage crisis. No Desert One fiasco. No hollow military on display. No Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. While it's clear to Pletka and me that Obama's policies are sowing the seeds of expanding international instability, chaos and violence, the fact is that the day of reckoning has not yet come -- when the price for "leading from behind" will really come due in much higher sacrifices of American blood, treasure, and honor. Benghazi was but the canary in the coal mine, a foreshadowing of the super storm yet to hit.

But for now, it must be said that Obama has largely succeeded in avoiding the worst, in kicking the can down the road. Can it go on for another four years? I would guess not. But I could be wrong. If I am, if Obama's luck continues to hold, if the world is such in 2016 that a plausible case can still be made that the Democrats have been responsible stewards of America's national security, then whatever the Republicans do in opposition to get their foreign policy house in order (as necessary and essential a task as that no doubt is) may not be enough to make an electoral difference.

John Hannah, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, served as national security advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney from 2005 to 2009. 

The Art of Snore - By John Arquilla

Forget about the Pentagon as potential victim in the stylized Kabuki drama of fiscal cliff negotiations. In an era of exceptional partisan bitterness that all too often forecloses thoughtful political discourse, it is the very lack of divergent views and spirited debate about defense that endangers American national security. In the absence of a clash of ideas about military affairs, the massive Pentagon budget, holding steady in recent years at a cost of $1.75 billion per day (some $630 billion-plus, annually), will continue to be regularly, routinely passed by huge bipartisan majorities in Congress. For example, only 11 senators voted against the latest allocation for Fiscal 2013.

This failure to debate means that the U.S. military will remain largely on autopilot, continuing to invest heavily in systems that are most traditional -- and most comfortable. Like a slightly improved new super aircraft carrier, the Ford class, or yet another generation of jet fighter planes, like the F-35. This despite the diminishing returns and growing vulnerability of carriers, and the total lack of need for a new jet, given that only one American fighter plane has been shot down by an enemy fighter in the last 40 years.

Aside from reflecting our doubling down on an aging technology, the Ford is the poster child for runaway cost overruns, going nearly a billion dollars over budget in 2012 alone. Sen. John McCain has called out the Ford fiasco as "a national disgrace." As for the F-35, it lives in a budgetary world of its own. Acquisition of about 2,400 of these aircraft is slated to cost taxpayers $400 billion -- and their operation and maintenance will run an additional $600 billion. A cool trillion, at a time when American air superiority is hardly under threat -- and at a time when the economy cannot bear the cost.

There are many other problematic systems out there, almost all of the major ones plagued by significant cost overruns. A 2009 Government Accountability Office audit of the 96 largest defense acquisition programs reflected overspending totaling about $300 billion -- 40 percent above contract prices, in aggregate -- an amount that is roughly equal to the entire defense budget submitted by President Bill Clinton in his last year in office.

Since 9/11, total American defense spending has more than doubled. This despite the fact that our declared enemy, the al Qaeda network, could line up every single jihadi they have -- including from its affiliates in Iraq, Libya, Mali, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen -- and still not be able to amass enough manpower to fill out the ranks of even one of our Army divisions. More than a trillion dollars were spent in Iraq; now our forces are gone and al Qaeda is on the march there once again. Nearly as much has been spent in Afghanistan, with equally mixed results.

And when it comes to thinking through the needs of bigger wars, the vast majority of our spending remains focused on relatively old weapons systems -- while others are leapfrogging ahead. For example, the Chinese navy is not emphasizing aircraft carriers; instead, it is focusing on making supersonic anti-ship missiles, brilliant seagoing mines smart enough to position themselves right under the keels of our big vessels, and torpedoes that create a bubble of air in front -- to reduce resistance -- so they can close in on their targets at very high speeds. As matters stand, we are spending more and more, and getting less and less in return.

How has this come to pass? For years, congressional earmarks were pointed to as the principal culprit, as individual members took care of their own bailiwicks with juicy boondoggles. But earmarks never accounted for more than a percent or two of the total budget. Nor is it at all clear that Congress is foisting unwanted systems more generally on the Pentagon. The fact of the matter is that the military is in the catbird seat; whatever it asks for will be approved. Conservatives apply much less scrutiny to the defense budget than they do to other functions of government, while liberals fear looking soft on defense.

The Fiscal Cliff Sequel - By Gordon Adams

"Our revels now are ended. These our actors, as I foretold you, were all spirits, and are melted into air, into thin air." Prospero, The Tempest, Act IV, Scene 1

The curtain has closed on the shadow play "The Fiscal Cliff." The actors have left and the journalists are sweeping the stage. As foretold in August 2011 it was theater, not a reality show, and certainly not reality itself. But gird your loins for the next round; the fight is far from over.

The endgame drama was a tax bill, not a spending bill, and certainly not a Grand Bargain. It did not affect spending very much at all, as nearly two-thirds of the Republican members of the House pointed out yesterday in voting against the deal.

Because it deferred virtually all of the spending issues, it opened up the opportunity for a new theatrical performance to come to town, one everybody will recognize: "The Debt Ceiling: The Sequel."

We will get to fight the sequester fight all over again in the next two months, without the tax issues to balance it out. Senator Lindsey Graham, already on the record for saying (wrongly) that the Pentagon might have to send out 800,000 layoff notices if the Pentagon budget were hit by sequester, has already advertised that his party should "save your powder for the debt ceiling fight."

But this is not going to be the same kind of fight. The markets are not going to bounce up and down about the spending issue, not in the ecstatic way they bounded up today.  The economic consequences of billions of dollars in added taxes are not the same as the consequences of spending cuts this year ($109 billion) that are less than 1 percent of overall federal spending.

Budgets and spending are familiar year-by-year struggles for Congress. Because negotiators could not get even close to a spending agreement last month, they pushed this fight to March -- about the same time that Secretary Geithner has said that the United States will hit the debt ceiling after his ability to shuffle funds around to avoid going over the top will run out of steam. So the same two trains -- spending and the debt ceiling -- are heading toward each other as they were in the summer of 2011.

What does this mean for federal spending and, my beat, for defense? Not much. Defense is still a side show, a "residual" in a larger agreement.

This week's deal postponed the Budget Control Act's spending sequester for two months, which meant some of the savings that were supposed to happen between January 2 and March 1 -- about $24 billion -- needed to be covered in some way. The deal agreed to apply some of the revenues from the tax changes to cover some of that spending gap.

The Coming Year in Review - By David Rothkopf

As that great geopolitical theorist Carly Simon once observed, "We can never know about the days to come but we think about them anyway, yay."  She then went on to say, as ketchup lovers everywhere remember, "Anticipation, anticipation, is making me late...is keepin' me waitin'."

Of course, the tortures of anticipation are well known to observers of the slow-motion train wreck that has been Washington's management of America's financial situation, or the recent, interminable U.S. presidential campaign, or the hideously slow path to oblivion followed by the Assad regime in Syria, or the painfully circular Eurofollies, not to mention the gradual but undeniable degradation of the planet's environment that goes on year in and year out despite our clear knowledge about how to avoid the damage.

The time has come to say "enough."  We live in an age in which the average consumer expects instant gratification. There is no reason those who are interested in the bigger issues taking place in the world shouldn't have it too. For that reason, we bring to you the top headlines that you will be looking back at when 2013 draws to a close 12 months from now.  Think of it as the year in review, before it happens. Yay: 

America Recovers

Forget the fiscal cliff or the debt ceiling.  Admittedly, that may seem difficult given the headlines of the moment. The clown show in Washington is diverting for inside the Beltway reporters and creates a kind of artificial drama that makes one periodically wonder if Kris Jenner were actually speaker of the House. But see the economy through the eyes of the market.  Washington dithers but hops to when it gets slapped around enough by traders. Meanwhile, there are winds at America's back: An energy boom.  Housing markets recovering. Signs of resurgent growth in key sectors. Other big markets a little soft and international investors looking to the United States as a secure place where the real protection of intellectual property can spur innovation. Growth in Canada and Mexico. Insourcing as a real trend bringing jobs back to the United States. That's why smart market observers like Laszlo Birinyi, who were early to call the current bull market, expect record stock market highs in 2013.  In his view, people are ready for the slump to be over and the prospect of a bull market will be irresistible.

This has its downsides, in particular the concern that too much growth will make Washington sloppy again, counting on a rebounding economy to make up for its spending sins.  But Washington has done us all a favor by becoming so feckless and irrelevant that no one is counting on the U.S. government to lead America out of the boom. Which will leave growth in the hands of people and companies who understand it.  Which for Barack Obama, John Boehner & Co. ought to have them remembering that old lyric from "Pippin": "it's smarter to be lucky than it's lucky to be smart."

China (and Some of the Rest of the World) Recovers

American growth will help even if it is modest. But the United States can no longer be the world's locomotive as it once was. It needs help. China hands I have spoken to think 8-9 percent (or even slightly higher) growth in 2013 is likely.  This would be a return to roughly 2011 growth levels after a 2012 slump that started to reverse during the second half of 2012. Europe experts think the worst of the crisis may be behind them. Some emerging markets (see below) may show signs of real life even as others (Brazil, Argentina, India) continue to struggle for a while. The net net: 2013 will be the year that the five-year slump associated with the Great Recession really comes to an end, even if many don't feel the benefits for some time to come.

The Second Coming

If you were to print out all the white papers, op-eds, and think-tank reports urging U.S. President Barack Obama to do this or that in his second term, the sheer amount of paper produced would probably require chopping down the Amazon rain forest. There's a reason these well-intentioned ideas generally sit on the shelf: They're unrealistic. Wave a magic wand, and the president can do everything from make peace in the Middle East to reshape the entire world economy in America's favor. What follows is something different: advice he can actually implement.

Jody Williams: Stop Using Land Mines and Cluster Munitions

George Papandreou: Save Greece, Save Europe

John Prendergast: Get Kony

Kenneth Roth: Dump These 8 Unsavory Allies

David E. Hoffman: Take the Nukes off Alert

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Get His Authority Back

Gal Luft: Kill the Oil Monopoly

Gernot Wagner: Cut Power Plant Pollution

Edward P. Joseph: Make a Trade Deal with Europe

Micah L. Sifry: Fix American Democracy 

Midnight in Havana - By Yoani Sánchez

HAVANA ' Just outside the Virgin of Regla temple, here in Havana, a fortune-teller throws shells for passersby in exchange for money. Every day she gets the same questions: Will they find love? Will they be able to buy a home? Will they be able to travel in the near future? And above all, when will "this" end?

With a simple demonstrative pronoun, the fortune-teller's clients refer to what some call "the revolution," others, "the dictatorship," but what most simply refer to as "The System." It's a difficult question for the white-turbaned woman with her intensely red nails to answer with any specificity, partly because she can never be sure if the questioner is a State Security agent in civilian dress. So she looks at the position of each shell and says, in barely a whisper, "Soon. It will be soon."

It's increasingly obvious that the biological clock of the Cuban government -- a slow and agonizing journey of the hands that has lasted 54 years -- is closing in on midnight. Every minute that passes brings obsolescence a little nearer. The existence of a political system should not be so closely linked to the youth or decrepitude of its leaders, but in the case of our island, both ages have come to be the same thing.

Like a creature made in the image and likeness of a man -- who believes himself to be God -- Cuba's current political model will not outlive its creators. Every decision made over the past five decades, every step taken in one direction or another, has been marked by the personalities and decisions of a handful of human beings -- two of them in particular. One, Fidel Castro, 86, has been convalescing for six long years in a place few Cubans could find on a map.

Although in the last five years Fidel's brother Raúl, 81, has installed some younger faces in the administrative and governmental apparatus, the most important decisions remain concentrated in the hands of octogenarians. (Raúl's successor, Jose Ramon Machado, is 82.) Like a voracious Saturn devouring his children, the principal leaders of the revolution have not allowed any favored sons to overshadow them.

The last to be ousted due to the paranoia of the Castro brothers were Vice President Carlos Lage, a figure who enjoyed popular sympathy, and the foreign minister Felipe Perez Roque. Both might have made promising successors, but were accused by Fidel Castro himself as having been "addicted to the honey of power" and removed from their positions in 2009.

Their own selfishness has left Cuban leaders without a plan for succession and time has run out to develop it, at least one not sincerely committed to continuing along the path set by old men dressed in olive green.

For Raúl, the picture is worrisome, and he has declared that "time is short" to ready the generation that will replace him and his comrades. In 2013, he will be forced to accelerate this process, and his obvious desperation about the future is contributing to the ideological weakening and the loss of whatever popular support the Castro regime still enjoys.

The Global Linguistic Revolution - By Robert McCrum

The Observer, where I work, is housed in a flashy modern glass cube in central London, overlooking Regent's Canal. The crystal cliff face of the newsroom reflects sky and water, jet travel and chugging barges. The English language my co-workers and I use also reflects a duality: Part of it is grounded in dictionaries and traditional grammar, while another, more modern part reflects a global dialect energized by the digital revolution.

A sign of the times, not so very long ago, was a memo the Observer's staff received from our editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger. His note contained 10 propositions about the implications of a global readership: "There is no such thing as Abroad," it began. "Most of our readers are 'foreign'." Alluding to the 50 million visitors who access our website from across the globe each day, the memo also issued a declaration fraught with significance for the deployment of language across the world today.  "No economy is an island," declared Rusbridger. "Technology is global."

We're not just seeing a revolution in the newspaper business -- we're seeing a linguistic revolution. English is running riot across the globe, becoming, in the words of anthropologist Benedict Anderson, "a kind of global-hegemonic post-clerical Latin." From my British perspective, this Olympic year has exposed variants of our language to a global audience of billions. The ups-and-downs of the U.S. presidential race, the dramas of Kate's pregnancy, the plot twists of Downton Abbey: These political and cultural landmarks are now being retailed to a world audience.

The hubbub of the world's incessant conversation has sparked the creation of a new language. This emerging lingua franca, what I call Globish, is the most vivid and universal cultural phenomenon the world has ever known. Its expressions have a technicolor exuberance: "Glassy" and "fundoo" -- meaning "wanting a drink" and "excellent," respectively -- dramatize the impact of technological and social change on the Indian subcontinent. So do "cent per cent" for "100 percent," "badmash" for "naughty," and "eve teasing" for "sexual harassment."

We must recognize this awesome fact: For the first time in human history, it's possible for one language to be transmitted, and received, across the whole planet. Moreover, it's not just a linguistic story.

In India, after half a century of trying to replace English with Hindi (inadvertently creating "Hinglish"), the current government has finally embraced the goal of establishing English teaching in all primary schools. It could be a liberating phenomenon: As Zareer Masani writes in the current issue of Prospect, in India there is "a growing conviction among India's most disadvantaged communities that the English language could be their salvation from poverty and social exclusion."