Tim Pawlenty Goes Full Metal Hawk in Foreign Policy Speech
The National Journal reports on Governor Tim Pawlenty's speech today at the Council On Foreign Relations, in which the milquetoast Minnesotan decries reducing America's G.I. footprint:
"The Middle East is changing before our eyes--but our government has not kept up," Pawlenty said, according to prepared remarks provided by his campaign. "It abandoned the promotion of democracy just as Arabs were about to seize it. It sought to cozy up to dictators just as their own people rose against them. It downplayed our principles and distanced us from key allies."
"What is wrong, is for the Republican Party to shrink from the challenges of American leadership in the world," he said. "History repeatedly warns us that in the long run, weakness in foreign policy costs us and our children much more than we'll save in a budget line item."
"America already has one political party devoted to decline, retrenchment, and withdrawal," he added. "It does not need a second one."
Democracy promotion and foreign policy realism (the former being the Bush Administration's way of making lemonade out of lemons after it found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the latter being something the U.S. has pretty much always engaged in, as Senator John McCain and Muammar Gaddafi can attest), are not mutually exclusive, nor did they end or begin with President Obama. For more on Pawlenty's foreign policy philosophy, see this Jeff Goldberg interview for Bloomberg View:
I then asked him why our national security demands victory in Libya, a country that poses no serious threat to the U.S. The intervention, after all, was motivated exclusively by humanitarian concerns.
"Initially, let's say that was the case," Pawlenty said. "A quick, decisive decision by Obama in days, not weeks, to impose a no-fly zone would have given us a very different result. But once the president of the United States says that Qaddafi must go, you just can't let him sit there indefinitely and thumb his nose at us. He's a third-rate dictator who has American blood on his hands."
Pawlenty's argument is not unpersuasive. "People who are thugs and bullies respect strength. They don't respect weakness. And when you project a foreign policy that is equivocal, tardy, uncertain, noncommittal, unprioritized, unfocused and naive, you invite more mischief, more danger and more confrontation."
More Reason on Tim Pawlenty. Jacob Sullum on the difference between military spending and defense spending, and on Obama's hunt for legal counsel that would justify his ignoring the War Powers Act.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Great.
Is Pawlenty McCain's bastard son?
T-Paw's just talkin' tough since he's on a national stage.
He was a moderate Republican as governor.
Moderates are the hawks.
Yep. Think McCain and Graham.
And Obama.
As much as some here hate to hear it, Ron Paul is regarded as the "furthest right wing" guy in Congress
Hey TPaw, before we get to victory in Libya, can we finally withdraw from Germany and Japan?
"America already has one political party devoted to decline, retrenchment, and withdrawal,"
SRSLY?
When will they emerge from hiding?
+1
+2. I haven't really started paying a lot of attention to this stuff yet but he's defiantly scatched from my list.
But once the president of the United States says that Qaddafi must go, you just can't let him sit there indefinitely and thumb his nose at us.
It just gets worse.
Dumber
and dumber
and dumber.
We're the greatest power in the history of the entire world, and we're worried about whether some insane dictator defies our will (which he wasn't really doing lately, anyway)? So what? We've established that we'll use force in response to force or threats to our interest or global peace, so if we don't use force, it's because we don't think it's necessary. I didn't know that daring us to use force was sufficient justification for the use of force.
Also, the Constitution.
But...but...Qaddafi might say "neener neener neener!". There's no way we could endure that! It would be the end of the Amurikan way of life as we know it!
Right, that's why I don't like this guy. Now I remember.
This from the guy who didn't dare to attack Romney on Romneycare at the last debate. If Pawlenty can't handle Romney, how is he supposed to handle people like Qaddafi?
Hey, Obama said Qaddafi must go, not TPaw...
He was fine and dandy for the last 23 years, but now that Salome has demanded his head, platters to the ready... let's go get him!
Do these people even pause to think? Even for a second?
We're the greatest power in the history of the entire world, and we're worried about whether some insane dictator defies our will (which he wasn't really doing lately, anyway)? So what? We've established that we'll use force in response to force or threats to our interest or global peace, so if we don't use force, it's because we don't think it's necessary. I didn't know that daring us to use force was sufficient justification for the use of force.
@ I paid $32.67 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshiba laptop for $94.83 being delivered to
our house tomorrow by FedEX. I will never again pay expensive retail prices at stores. I even sold a
46 inch HDTV to my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get. Here is the website we using to get
all this stuff, BetaSell.com
National sovereignty is only for countries that speak English.
True story.
He even looks like the chicken hawk from the cartoons.
pic needs alt text
Straight from central casting!
Miss Johnson, have the casting pool send over a weaselly looking guy to embarassingly play a tough sounding politician right away!
(Great picture too!)
"Pull my finger, Qaddafi!"
http://www.dailyfreegames.com/.....3_800.html
Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser.
Why would you align yourself with the guy you hope to run against in the general election on something that nobody in America wants? Can't anybody play this game?
Do these people even pause to think?
No time to think! Thinking is for losers; what pollster say?
*hunches shoulders, glares fiercely*
The pollsters don't say "hawk" is the way to go.The right wing and establishment guys are cooing like non-interventionist doves. Neocon hawkishness is the only unclaimed territory left for T-Paw to stake out.
"People who are thugs and bullies respect strength. They don't respect weakness. And when you project a foreign policy that is equivocal, tardy, uncertain, noncommittal, unprioritized, unfocused and naive, you invite more mischief, more danger and more confrontation."
Libya is the country that gave up all of its NBC weapons after the Iraq invasion. Let's send the message that giving up your NBC plans is a good way to get bombed by NATO. Fucking worst of neo- and paleocon reasoning.
Astute observation. Except: where is the paleocon support for bombing Libya ?
Code Pink is probably more down with it then the paleocons. They just had a vote on this in congress.
McCain is a neo? Maybe I'm lost on the terminology then.
Doesn't "paleocon" refer to Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul types, who are typically opposed to intervention to the point of being labeled isolationist?
I was using it in the McCain/Graham/Reaganite sense. Perhaps I am wrong.
The first two are neocons.
"Paleocon" refers to a broad swath of ideology rooted in "the old right" of pre-war conservatism One thing they all have in common is anti-interventionism.
So GHW Bush was what? Just a regular con? Sorry, I'm not trying to argue, just get caught up on my terminology.
"neocon" center-right moderate. He didn't start out as a neocon but 911 CHANGED EVERYTHING!9!!
George H.W. Bush was a moderate conservative who belived in a Realpolitik foreign policy. He was a realist never a big believer in nation-building. Now his son well...we know that story.
"When I point my Presidential finger, tyrants will quake!"
Wow, Pawlenty, thanks for reminding us why you suck. I guess he's sucking up to the national security leg of the stool now, since he's sucked up to the fiscal conservative leg a few weeks ago.
I'm ashamed to say that I once thought this guy would make a decent candidate.
Yeah, I saw him being interviewed about economic policies and thought he might be ok.
No neeed for shame, MSL. Just admit he wasn't as you expected and move on to a better candidate.
What's shameful is trying to defend your guy to the ends of the earth simply because he's your guy.
Bachmann? Did somebody say something bad about Bachmann? All those quotes are leftist lies!
Also, Glenn Greenwald.
"What's shameful is trying to defend your guy to the ends of the earth simply because he's your guy."
Oh, nostalgia for my old conservative days...
"When my pollsters say 'SUCK!' I suck, you betcha!"
I'm always countering the neocon canard of the danger of pulling out early of a foreign policy mess by mentioning Reagan and Beirut and the last response I got was "That wasn't Reagan, that was Clinton".
the Bush Administration's way of making lemonade out of lemons after it found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
This meme will never die. I spoke to one of the contributors to the Iraqi Perspectives Project about the IPP the other day. The truth is, we did find chemical weapons in Iraq. We didn't find them in the quantities that we expected, and we didn't find an advanced nuclear program. However, the claim that there were no WMD in Iraq is simply false statement.
Moldy old mortar rounds that at one time held mustard gas aren't "weapons of mass destruction" unless one is idiotically generous with the definition of the term.
You seem to be according some credibility to the "find" which it does not deserve.
Wow, pmains -- your 'proof' in the link is old mustard gas shells?
Oh, I see. They're old mustard gas shells. Well, then I guess they're not really chemical weapons after all.
The definition of WMD used in the run-up to the Iraq war was chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Hence, finding chemical weapons is finding WMD. This is just one example.
As I alluded to before, the IPP discussed the chemical weapons we found in Iraq. The media, of course, reported just the opposite.
This is a perfect illustration of why everybody "knows" that no WMD were found in Iraq. When evidence is presented, the goalposts are moved. The story fades from memory. A week later, the dent to the public consciousness is gone and we continue in blissful ignorance.
Also, the fact that these are "old" mustard shells gets to the heart of why we went into Iraq in the first place. We had a cease-fire agreeement with Saddam that he would report and destroy all of his chemical and biological weapons. That didn't happen.
Wired Magazine has more information on WMD found in Iraq.
Thanks for the find pmains. You're going to see all skepticism of MSM reporting normally present here evaporate on the subject of Iraq.
Thanks for the Wired link, pmains.
Even after reading the Wikileaks info, the whole thing looks oversold.
We only went into Iraq to take out Israel's #1 enemy -- the WTC attacks just gave us an easy sell to the public.
Israel's #1 enemy is, as always, Iran.
Not that anyone is reading this anymore, but really? Your justification for invading is a bunch of old mustard gas shells? Not fermenters brimming with smallpox, not nukes, not pallets of VX or GB, but some mustard gas left over from the Iran war? The threat that was sold to the American public by Powell, et al, was a mushroom cloud sprouting over D.C., or a smallpox or anthrax epidemic. Not mustard gas.
Moreover, IIRC, about 65 countries have had chemical weapons like those shells, at one time or another. Should we have invaded them all? How about only the ones that act like assholes towards their neighbors? (Ethiopia, Burma, Yemen, Syria, Iran.) That ought to be only a dozen or so.
Why won't the Republican party just admit that OIF was a ridiculous idea, hideously expensive in blood and treasure, and stop trying to justify the whole terrible, stupid thing. Admit it, it was a mistake. A 4,000 U.S. dead, 3/4 trillion dollar mistake. And then move on. It'll do wonders for the credibility of the GOP on foreign policy.
Instead, we get to sit through the spectacle of watching neocons continuing to insist 8 years later that they were right, and propping up that argument with ridiculous evidence like those shells.
4408 dead, 31,922 wounded, 806 billion dollars.
http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
We also found shittons of conventional explosives, which for some reason don't count (apparently they aren't as scary or something).
I remember seeing the footage of Iraqis looting some facility loaded with explosives that our military had cleared out but chosen not to guard, and thinking "uh oh"
Sorry, it had to be done.
Many get strike through humor wrong.
The words with the strike through are supposed to be the ones you truly mean but otherwise won't write (or say) because you want to appear polite.
Far too many get it oh-so wrong.
Here's how it's done:
Thanks asshole Al Wayswright.
+ a bevy!
Now that's comedy.
Oh, poor little baby WTF. You ought to be mad at your parents for gifting you with your mediocre IQ intellect.
The other sort of strike-through humor is where you are making a correction to a polite or boring statement, revising it to a rude, blunt, and more accurate version.
That's an assertive assertion.
He's right that mad duck could've been neutralized easily within a few days. And its what should have been done. Instead, we got a bunch of equivocating and non-action, allowing muammer to entrench himself.
Its pretty pathetic how libertarians have no interest in helping to spread freedom, even when there are massive popular uprisings against a repressive dictator. A rebellion that specifically and desperately called for American support.
INDIVIDUALS other than American citizens also deserve more freedom. And its not like we don't have a million plus morons drawing government paychecks and carrying weapons which would come in mighty handy.
"Non-US citizens need not apply to the individual liberty circle jerk. Unless you have your state-issued AMURRIKKAN citizenship card, we gots no interest in your plight, who cares if you want our help!"
Lots of people want my help, Zuo. That doesn't mean I should rob my neighbor to give them some.
Your neighbor is qaddafi?
Like I fucking said, we ALREADY have a massive oversized juggernaut of a military. If we didn't, I'd agree with you. But we have millions of pukes in jackboots drawing a public paycheck. They can either sit around playing xbox, or earn their fucking keep by at least helping to spread some liberty and freedom (or trying to). I go with the latter. I see you prefer them to just be welfare-cases in uniforms.
And yes, I'd prefer no standing military at all. But thats not the current reality.
You realize that with combat and hazard pay, plus transport, fuel usage, and equipment wear and tear, that waging war is hella more expensive than just paying them to sit around, right? It's not equivalent scenerios.
No, man, in Zuo's world war is cheap. Them bullets and bodies are free.
at least helping to spread some liberty and freedom
Military action is never as simple as you are presenting it - and those "pukes" - as you describe them - are there to "provide for the common defense", which makes them too valuable for adventures in nation building.
The military could earn their keep herding college professors, progressive bureaucrats, and lefty folk singers into a big stadium. Or taking them on "surprise" free ocean skydiving vacations.
You monster!
Weren't you a college professor?
---"They can either sit around playing xbox, or earn their fucking keep by at least helping to spread some liberty and freedom (or trying to)."---
Unless the actual security of the U.S. is threatened, I would prefer they sit around playing XBox, not going out to interfere in the internal affairs of another country. You don't spread liberty to another country at the point of a gun
Except they (aside from gaddafi and his tribal lackeys) were literally begging for help from the US.
Look, why do we have a standing military if we won't even help people who are undisputedly being opressed and killed by a dictator, and who have risen against the yoke of opression. The US is under no threat from invasion whatsoever, which is why we don't need a standing military. But we have one, and it costs a lot. Might as well do some good in this craphole world of ours, then.
The USG does not have the right to impose costs on Americans for actions not meant to solely protect the rights of Americans. By this distinction, Afghanistan and Iraq invasions were alright Libya NOT so.
How the hell was Saddam Hussein a threat to the United States?
Zuo Logic 101:
Freedom is a universal value = America should militarily intervene in civil wars due to the massive number of historical examples in which this has worked out for us in the past and had absolutely no long-term negative consequences.
Killing poor people because we don't like their shitty government increases freedom.
We're freeing them from this mortal coil.
and helping them join the choir invisible. Bereft of life they rest in peace. This is a late freedom fighter.
Also, spreading freedom almost never works. You might be able to create an environment that allows them to free, but freedom is hard. See the current erosion here at home. I think Jerry Pournelle observed that people once said, "its a free country, ain't it. But no longer."
Its pretty pathetic how libertarians have no interest in helping to spread freedom, even when there are massive popular uprisings against a repressive dictator. A rebellion that specifically and desperately called for American support.
That's great. Now man the fuck up, grab your gun, fly over on your own dime, and liberate the poor brown people.
The funny thing is that the entire reason the Arab Spring happened in the first place is precisely BECAUSE the Obama administration was "equivocal, tardy, uncertain, noncommittal, unprioritized, unfocused and naive".
An unequivocal, timely, certain, committed, prioritized, focused and realpolitik driven administration would have done whatever to take to maintain the status quo and not allow a single one of our "critical regional ally" governments to fall.
Pawlenty is a great big moron and asshole if he thinks for a moment that an aggressive and assertive US foreign policy would have suddenly turned on allies and cut their throats. If Tim Pawlenty had been President (and if he's being serious here, and not just blowing smoke) the governments of Tunisia and Egypt would not have fallen and we would have given them whatever aid was necessary and turned a blind eye to whatever atrocities were necessary to achieve that fact. And WE would have probably intervened on the ground in Bahrain right next to the Saudis.
Agreed.
The funny thing is that the entire reason the Arab Spring happened in the first place is precisely BECAUSE the Obama administration was "equivocal, tardy, uncertain, noncommittal, unprioritized, unfocused and naive".
No, it happened because no one came to Mubarak's aid. The Obama administration's hemming and hawing actually left doubt in Egyptians' minds as to whether we would or not. Had the administration simply kept its mouth shut or said that it was an internal Egyptian matter, rather than going on full-court press in the media praising Mubarak, the revolution may have succeeded sooner. (and of course the ultimate outcome of the revolution is still very much in doubt)
If Tim Pawlenty had been President (and if he's being serious here, and not just blowing smoke) the governments of Tunisia and Egypt would not have fallen and we would have given them whatever aid was necessary and turned a blind eye to whatever atrocities were necessary to achieve that fact. And WE would have probably intervened on the ground in Bahrain right next to the Saudis.
You don't know that -- one of the infuriating attributes of neocon foreign policy is it's never clear where they actually think we should intervene...but once we intervene we can never pull out.
You don't know that -- one of the infuriating attributes of neocon foreign policy is it's never clear where they actually think we should intervene...but once we intervene we can never pull out.
So true.
"History repeatedly warns us that in the long run, weakness in foreign policy costs us and our children much more than we'll save in a budget line item."
I'd like to see that math.
CHAMBERLAIN!!1! Can we add this to the drinking game?
APPEASER! ISOLATIONIST! WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON!
now THAT's an argument i can get behind.
Fluffy is right, as usual.
Rather than go to college when he graduated, T-Paw enlisted in the Army and completed OCS. After obtaining a law degree, he answered Pres. Bush's call for action in Desert Storm. Back in civilian life, he volunteered again after 9-11 and served with distinction in Iraq and Afghanistan. He's a colonel in the Minnesota National Guard and is dying to serve if boots on the ground are required in Libya, Yemen, Syria or Iran.
At least that's what his website says in a parallel universe.
McCain, at least, walked the walk.
CHICKENHAWK!!!111!!
Creech, McCain was a legacy admittee to Annapolis and he had lots of practice killing little boys and girls and defenseless octogenerians from thousands of feet in the air until his ass got shot down.
As a pow, he ratted on fellow prisoners. Since his "release" he has continued to be a parasite.
What a fucking hero!
This.
He did suffer a lot during VNam and its aftermath -- but suffering alone does not make one a hero.
I'm certainly no fan of McCain's political policies, but as a veteran I have to take umbrage with some of your comments. Do you actually have any evidence of his ratting anyone out or are you just venting? Also, have you your self been a POW? If not, it must take some pretty huge balls to criticize a man's actions while in enemy custody. Just sayin'.
How about I judge him by the standards set by guys like James Stockdale and Nick Rowe? By those standards, he comes up a bit short.
I'm not going to criticize McCain for things he said or did under that kind of duress. Same reason I wouldn't fault a police suspect for letting the cops beat a false confession out of them.
I often wish the Viet Cong had finished off John McCain. They would be doing brown people around the world a favor
Its pretty pathetic how libertarians have no interest in helping to spread freedom, even when there are massive popular uprisings against a repressive dictator.
Popular uprising =/= spread of freedom. Egypt, for example, is transitioning nicely to a military dictatorship in cahoots with radical Islamists. Libya is mostly an inter-tribal grudge match unlikely to turn out well for the losing tribes in the Eastern part of the country when the Western tribes, with NATO support, win.
To call TP a 'hawk' implies he has some sort of philosophy or idea regarding foreign policy. He doesn't. He just like big guns and big explosions and other forms of 'power porn'.
T-Paw is Vader, and Michael Bay is his Emperor?
It would be Foreign Policy as a Michael Bay movie. COD MW2 in other words, except the gameplay wouldn't be as shitty.
TP for my bunghole!
Michelle Bachmann is looking a lot better after this.
These guys know their days are ending. The neocons went too far during their stay in the Republican party. It seems they may be migrating back to their original bedfellows, the Democrats
You never go full retard!
is good