by sarapul, Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 11:48:01 PM EST
Conservatives seem to go back and forth over what is the best kind of Conservative foreign policy, the Neoconservative policy or the Paleoconservative policy. One would have us intervene in everyone’s business, and the other would keep our military entirely out of all other nations. Both sides are wrong, and we don’t need a Neocon or a Paleocon foreign policy, but instead, a True Conservative one. By True Conservative, I mean one with no prefixes or suffixes, one content with just being called Conservative.
Neoconservatives have a foreign policy that traditionally would have been a phenomenon of the left. Their policy promotes intervention where it is not needed, such as in Germany, where we have a large troop presence, and in much of the rest of the world where we are not needed nor wanted. Their foreign policy would put security over liberty, a mistake that would ensure the demise of our Republic. It is, in fact, not a Conservative policy at all, and instead, a policy which many leftists would happily sign on to. We need a foreign policy that will involve liberty-oriented maneuvers, and rational deployment based on defense.
Paleoconservative are believers in the Old Rights isolationism. This cannot be exercised in today’s world of terrorists and other subversive enemies. Our military must be recognized as a force for good, not to promote our values but rather our national defense. They are wrong simply because of the fact that they say our military cannot be used at all around the world. Their heroes such as Ron Paul claim to support a foreign policy which is based on sovereignty, not the promotion of democracy. But in practice, they believe that wars such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the possible war in Iran are not beneficial to our defense.
As you will notice, both sides of this Conservative debate have strong allies on the left, from Joe Lieberman to Russ Feingold. This would lead me to believe that neither side is sufficiently Conservative to deserve that title. Neocons abandon the old Conservative maxim “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”-Ben Franklin, and the Paleocons abandon the Conservative ideal of keeping America exceptional. A true Conservative foreign policy would recognize the truth on both sides of this Conservative debate, and would make sure that our foreign policy promotes America, and defends American liberty.
A true Conservative national defense would keep our military strong, so as to promote “Peace through strength”-Ronald Reagan, while relieving ourselves of our involvement in most of the 180 nations which we have high troop levels in. It would recognize the threat posed by radical Islam, and would seek to destroy it, through technology and military force. A true Conservative national defense would remove us from the U.N. and secure the border with a massive electronic fence. It would increase our militaries size, while keeping many of our extraneous troops stationed in pointless areas such as Germany at home. It would fight the enemy with more common sense, not going down the Obama path of more troops in Afghanistan, when an infantry war has never been successful in that terrain. It would seek to streamline the military by exploring alternative technology such as the missile deployment system in Afghanistan. Finally, it would be fiscally responsible, at all times making sure that every single last military program was able to be funded, otherwise we would see the collapse of our military.
We need to pursue a Conservative foreign policy which will serve America best. Believe it or not, both Ron Paul and Dick Cheney are wrong on foreign policy, and clearly, neither of them or their followers are true Conservatives. We need the foreign policy advocated by true Conservative heroes such as Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, and Sarah Palin. We need a real Conservative foreign policy.