McCain and Graham Claim to Speak for Conservatives on Libya

The Brokeback tag team attacks GOP field

Whenever we attempt to evince bold distinctions between ourselves and the Democrats, Lindsey Graham and John McCain can always be counted upon to muddle those distinctions.  Foreign policy, in particular, is a subject in which voters struggle to perceive clear differences between the parties.  Consequently, we must repel the rapturous support for the so-called Arab Spring emanating from Obama's tag team of favorite Republicans.

Back in the 70s, our most consequential and enduring mistake was supporting the Iranian revolution against the Shah.  Jimmy Carter and his allies failed to comprehend that the problem with the Middle East was not autocracy per se; it was Islamofascism.  Tragically, the Obama administration, along with the Bill Kristol/John McCain Republicans, is helping to consummate the state-level Islamofascist takeover of the entire region.  We have ostensibly handed Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood/Iran and are on the cusp of delivering Yemen to Al-Qaeda.  Our encouragement of the Arab Spring is also emboldening the Palestinian majority in Jordan to overthrow our strongest Arab ally, King Abdullah.  We are doing nothing to prevent Bahrain from transforming into an Iranian proxy, instead of a vital ally.  Meanwhile, Bashar Assad, a dictator who truly deserves a timely demise, is still enjoying diplomatic relations with the U.S., even as he murders his own people in cold blood.

In light of all the upheaval in the Middle East, where was Obama's hill to die on in the Middle East?  Libya.  Yes, Muammar Gaddafi is an evil man; nonetheless, he is an evil man who has fought against Al-Qaeda.  Should we remove every brutal tyrant in the world?  Robert Mugabe is the ruthless leader of Zimbabwe, and has not been fighting Al-Qaeda, yet we are not prosecuting an aimless, impotent war against his regime.  But somehow John McCain and Lindsey Graham believe that the Al-Qaeda-backed Libyan rebels are sacrosanct, the city of Benghazi stands on hallowed ground, and that anyone who believes their plight runs counter to our national security interests ought to shut up.

This is what Lindsey Graham had to say on Meet the Press:

Jed Babbin on the Libya Disaster

Last week, two competing resolutions were brought to the House floor in an attempt to reign in Obama's disastrous intervention on behalf of the Al-Qaeda backed rebels in Libya.  Ironically, the prudent resolution-the one which would have brought an end to this madness-was offered by far-leftist Dennis Kucinich.

The other resolution, a mere rebuke of the President's callous disregard of congressional council, was offered by John Boehner.  This resolution was a banal attempt to oppose Obama without offering a bold and categorical rejection of the entire Libyan folly.  87 Republicans, mainly conservatives, supported Kucinich's robust resolution.  Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal excoriated these conservative by tainting them with the epithet, "Dennis Kucinich Republicans".

Today, in our series of must read articles, Jed Babbin offered a sagacious rebuttal of the WSJ critque, arguing that Boehner's alternative resolution was vapid political theater, and the 87 Republican dissenters are on the right side of history:

American Spring: Time to Stop Funding Terror Around the World

Job stimulus for terrorists, a housing crisis for Israel, moral relativism, oh my!
Barack Obama has many sinister friends who are egregiously subsidized by taxpayers, but at least they aren't terrorists. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for his foreign patrons. At a time when Congress is searching for any morsel to cut from our domestic budget, Obama wants to expand foreign aid..to terrorists and terror filled nations. His push for expanded foreign aid comes as part of a broader endorsement of the "Arab Spring" uprisings in his latest foreign policy speech. Bin Laden is also endorsing them from the grave. Republicans need to call for an American Spring and categorically oppose all aid to enemy nations and entities in the 2012 budget.

Over the past few months, Obama has helped blow up the Middle East by supporting radical Muslim uprisings in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. Simultaneously, he has hypocritically remained silent on Bashar Assad's violent repression in Syria until this week when he announced vapid sanctions on the Syrian dictator. He is still refusing to recall his ambassador from Damascus that he sent in 2009 as a gesture to Assad. He didn't even call for tough measures against Syria's puppet master; Iran, while claiming to support the Iranian protesters, despite his indifference when it really mattered in 2009.

However, upon further cogitation, Obama's actions are actually quite consistent. In both Egypt and Syria, Obama has strengthened the hand of terrorist organizations, placing Israel in great peril.

His support of Mubabrak's demise in Egypt, has led to a popular groundswell for war against Israel fomented by the Muslim Brotherhood. His continued support for Hamas and Fatah in Israel (with the proviso that they denounce "violence", of course) has emboldened the Palestinian terrorists and jeopardized the besieged state from within. Finally, his calculated tepid response to Syria's aggression, despite his tough rhetoric, and refusal to break diplomatic relations, has emboldened arch terrorist Assad to incite a breach of the Israeli border. State Department officials told the New York Times that Obama is worried about undermining the Syrian murderer because he views him as an indispensable partner in final negotiations for an Israeli peace deal, a.k.a. forcing Israel to hand over the Golan Heights. Hence, Obama views Assad as to big to fail.

Obama has successfully imperiled Israel on all fronts, while using American money and diplomacy to undermine the prestige of both nations. As the ever prescient Caroline Glick succinctly opined last week, "Unlike his predecessors, Obama's interest in the Palestinians is not opportunistic. He is a true believer."

The Palin Foreign Policy Doctrine

What is a conservative foreign policy?

In light of Obama’s morally indefensible and dyslexic policies regarding Egypt, Iran, Israel, Libya, and Syria, it is important that our eventual presidential nominee articulate a bold distinction in the realm of foreign policy.

Conservative domestic policy doctrine is quite indubitable and lucid (except among many elected Republicans); limited government, free enterprise, protection of individual liberties, limitation of criminal liberties, secure borders, and a robust civil society.  Foreign policy is more ambiguous because it is governed more by prudence than by doctrine.  Even though the overarching principle of any foreign policy initiative is American exceptionalism, the murkiness of America’s security interests has long blurred the distinction between divergent foreign policies.

During the Bush years, the distinction between “liberal” and “conservative” foreign policy was obfuscated even further due to President Bush’s embrace of neoconservative principles such as democratization and human rights interventions.  Also, the only opposition from the right which percolated into the media was the voices of those like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, who believed that our involvement in the Middle East and support of Israel served as the impetus for Islamic terror.

As such, the average political observer was presented with a false choice of conservative foreign policy between the so-called neoconservatives like Bill Kristol and so-called paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan.  Moreover, many conservatives, desiring to emphatically repudiate the detestable behavior of the anti-war movement, became inclined to reflexively support foreign intervention at any cost simply to “stay the course” and oppose the anti-war left.  These conservatives continue to injudiciously support an open ended commitment in Afghanistan and Libya, despite serious concerns to our national interests.

Earlier this week, Sarah Palin articulated the principles of a foreign policy that are neither neoconservative nor paleoconservative; rather plain old conservative.  Speaking at the Colorado Christian University for a military charity fundraiser, Governor Palin outlined the following commonsense principles for foreign intervention:

Libya is Not Our Fight

The absolute dyslexia of liberals and their choices for military intervention.

Liberals have a penchant for engaging in the wrong wars and fighting them the wrong way.  They are always meek and submissive towards those who represent an existential threat to America, such as Iran, Russia, China, Syria, and Venezuela.  When they finally choose to engage in military intervention, it is usually for a dubious cause or for the purpose of some humanitarian aid that lacks a clearly defined mission or end result for our troops.  Unfortunately, many Bush Republicans have a predilection to automatically support any military intervention, even if it lacks a clear mission or its original purpose does not represent a substantial threat to our national security.

Somalia was a classic example of a leftist foreign policy folly.  There was no reason to involve our military in a humanitarian operation in that part of the world.  However, once Somalia became a magnet for terrorists, these hypocritical interventionists refused to deal with the new reality and treat the mission as a military operation.  Consequently, our soldiers were unprepared for the ensuing ambush in which over a dozen American soldiers were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.  Instead of bringing the terrorists to justice and turning the place into a waste zone, we summarily retreated.  Thus, the very interventionists who were all too eager to engage in an imprudent use of our military were suddenly lacking the temerity to engage the enemy when it really mattered.

Unfortunately, it appears that history might repeat itself in Libya.  As with the Egyptian insurgents against Mubarak, the Libyan rebels do not share our values, and as such, do not warrant our overt military support.  In addition, unlike Iran and other terrorist supporting states, the Qaddafi regime in Libya does not pose an existential threat to our national security interests. 

Undoubtedly, Qaddafi (unlike Mubarak) deserves to suffer demise for his terrorist attacks during the 80's.  However, the ship already sailed on that one.  Reagan attempted to assassinate him in the 80's (at the appropriate time) and was ironically undermined by some of the same European countries that are suddenly calling for Qaddafi's head 25 years later.  France and Spain undermined Reagan's Operation El Dorado Canyon in 86' by denying us overflight rights, adding 1,300 extra miles for our bombers.  I guess it took them 25 years to conjure up the righteous indignation to take decisive action against Qaddafi.