RUTHFULLY YOURS

STEPHENS MAKES GOOD POINTS BUT OMITS SOME CRITICAL ISSUES…A CANDIDATE SHOULD STATE FIRMLY WHO IS OUR ENEMY? WHAT IS THE IDEOLOGY THAT DRIVES TREASON AMONG SOME AMERICAN RESIDENTS AND CITIZENS? WHY DO OUR BORDERS REMAIN POROUS AND PERMIT AN INFLUX OF DRUG CARTEL CRIMINALS AS WELL AS TERRORISTS?….OTHERWISE THEY ALL SOUND ALIKE…..RSK

The U.S. would be credible if it desisted from pouring more diplomatic wine into the punctured jar that is the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process.” Or if it took serious steps to help overthrow the Assad regime, thereby depriving Iran of its principal ally in the Arab world and its link to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Or if it abandoned its nascent efforts to negotiate with the Taliban and instead published the names of Taliban leaders on the drone-strike list. Or if it dramatically increased the size of the U.S. Navy to counter China’s naval buildup. Or if it desisted from all rhetoric suggesting that it can solve its budget woes by further cutting Pentagon spending.Under Barack Obama, the impulse driving most major foreign policy decisions has been consensus: Consensus at the United Nations, where the administration has been notably reluctant to use its veto; consensus with the Arab League, whose views led to action against Libya but passivity toward Syria; consensus when it comes to arms control with Russia, or sanctions on Iran. Tellingly, the president’s one inarguable foreign policy success—killing bin Laden—was a purely unilateral action.

The GOP ought to have a different watchword for America and the world: credibility. The credibility of our promises, and of our threats. The credibility of the dollar, and of our debt. The credibility of our arms, and of our willingness, when decision is made, to use them to decisive effect. The Roman epigram that has become the unofficial motto of the Marine Corps sums it up nicely: “No better friend; no worse enemy.”

When it comes to presidents and credibility (or lack thereof) probably nobody will do worse than James Buchanan, who in his final message to Congress declared secession to be illegal, while adding that nothing could be done to stop it. Then again, in matters of foreign policy Mr. Obama is setting some benchmarks of his own.

It is not credible to insist that a nuclear Iran is “unacceptable”—and then announce plans for the containment of a nuclear Iran. It is not credible to surge 30,000 troops to Afghanistan—and then provide the Taliban with a date certain for the beginning of our withdrawal. It is not credible to intervene in Libya on humanitarian grounds—while promising that Moammar Gadhafi is not a target (falsely, as it would turn out).

It is not credible to assert that the New Start treaty with Russia does nothing to limit U.S. missile defenses—only to be flatly contradicted on the point by the Russian foreign minister at the ceremony exchanging ratification documents. It is not credible to promise better relations with Europe—and then stun Poland and the Czech Republic by abruptly abandoning plans to build missile defense bases there. It is not credible for the administration to endorse Ben Bernanke’s decision to flood the world with dollars—and then denounce China for manipulating its currency.

It is not credible to demand within days that Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, an ally of 30 years, step down—but make no such demand, after months of unrest, of Syria’s Bashar Assad, an enemy. It is not credible to assure Israel that the U.S. will not expect it to negotiate with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas—and then push Israel to adopt Mr. Obama’s negotiating formulas even as Hamas negotiates the terms of its entry into the government. It is not credible to promise support for democracy in Latin America—and then score Honduras for stopping a Chavista putsch while playing every excuse to delay ratification of a free trade agreement with Colombia.

I’ve probably missed a few items. You get the drift.

So what’s a credible GOP alternative to the parade of Obama horribles?

It doesn’t help that Republicans in Congress are hamstringing the presidency itself by going on about the War Powers Resolution, one of the worst congressional abuses of the post-Watergate era. It doesn’t help, either, to hear Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann regurgitate, as they did at the New Hampshire debate, Moammar Gadhafi’s talking points about Libya’s rebels being tools of al Qaeda.

What would help is a Republican who says: Mr. Obama’s failure in Libya isn’t that he intervened to stop mass murder; it’s that he’s intervened so half-heartedly. It would help to explain that bin Laden’s death does not mean Mission Accomplished in Afghanistan and that an abrupt U.S. withdrawal would simply turbo-charge the Taliban on both sides of the AfPak border. Credibility requires that wars should be fought to a winning conclusion or not at all.

The U.S. would be credible if it desisted from pouring more diplomatic wine into the punctured jar that is the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process.” Or if it took serious steps to help overthrow the Assad regime, thereby depriving Iran of its principal ally in the Arab world and its link to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Or if it abandoned its nascent efforts to negotiate with the Taliban and instead published the names of Taliban leaders on the drone-strike list. Or if it dramatically increased the size of the U.S. Navy to counter China’s naval buildup. Or if it desisted from all rhetoric suggesting that it can solve its budget woes by further cutting Pentagon spending.

This list, too, goes on. In foreign policy, as in so much else in life, credibility is the currency nations use to achieve results without resort to more drastic means. President Obama, spendthrift in so many ways, has been particularly wasteful here. A Republican foreign policy would be a sustained attempt to recover this squandered capital.