The confirmation of the New START nuclear arms treaty with Russia marked a kill for an influential faction among America's right that can better be described as national security regressives. These are "conservative" voices who oppose strengthening and utilizing the wide scope of traditional tools of American statecraft, including assertive diplomacy, smart and balanced national security spending, and accurate and targeted measures to fight terrorist groups.
They may get missed on New START, but they are not probably to go away anytime soon.
The fact that a modest arms control measure such as New START took so much time to sign is a forerunner of tensions to follow in 2011-a class in which conservatives face significant challenges reconciling competing national security agendas in their ranks. The starting bell on the Republican presidential primary fight is some to ring, and more foreign policy regressives have joined the ranks of the new Congress-so wait for some sharp battles to emerge among conservatives on internal security. This internal conservative debate could get a major affect on how America conducts its foreign policy in 2011 and beyond.
Conservatives today are more divided on foreign policy than they have been in decades. The 2010 Republican Party "Pledge" manifesto for the midterm elections, however, papered over these divisions, briefly mentioning national security as an afterthought. It contained few ideas on how to prevent America safe and strong.
The argument over the New START treaty exposed some of the conservative divisions on internal security. Traditional foreign policy conservatives such as Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and several former secretaries of state supported the accord while other internal security regressives such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and other Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a likely 2012 presidential primary candidate, famously called the treaty "Obama's worst foreign policy mistake" in this clause for The Washington Post. Another key division exists on defense spending. Tea Party advocates, for example, are geared up to fight defense hawks.
The biggest challenge for conservatives in reconciling the divisions on foreign policy in their ranks comes from the regressive camp. National security regressives are commonly described as conservatives, but the positions they have staked out on foreign policy make them unworthy of the conservative label.
The dictionary defines conservatives as "tending to maintain existing conditions and institutions." What sets regressives apart from traditional conservatives is that they are not interested in preserving existing foreign policy conditions and institutions. In fact, they have eschewed many of the key tools of diplomacy that have made Us a world leader-assertive diplomacy, smart and balanced national security spending, support for international institutions serving as force multipliers to treat some of the world's most pressing security challenges, and agreements like New Beginning that involve other countries live up to commitments aimed at enhancing global security.
Regressives are probably to assume upon several key issues heading into 2011. The maiden is overall national security spending. Conservatives are strongly divided on overall spending and its impact on deficits. But regressives are generally opposed to expenditure for delicacy and growing in particular.
This is demonstrated by recent statements by the incoming president of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. She has made it her charge to cut funding for the State Department and foreign aid. Foreign policy regressives have opposed some of the most effective tools to project American superpower in the 21st century such as investments in tough diplomacy. They remain trapped in a twentieth century Cold War mindset, placing more stress on military office at the disbursement of economic, diplomatic, and early forms of power.
The ring for cuts on the civilian side of home security spending comes at a sentence when the Obama administration is stressful to promote these tools of internal power. This effort is illustrated by the recent Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review and the longstanding efforts by Defense Secretary Robert Gates (a Republican appointee) and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to increase investments in diplomacy.
Beyond the spending issue, national security regressives are building their arguments for conventional military operations to address threats and security problems that don't have simple military solutions. So we're probably to learn more advocacy for another Middle East war. Rep. Ros-Lehtinen has dismissed Obama's Iran engagement policy as a "mirage," even as conservatives like Robert Kagan have recognized its success in creating international consensus about the Iranian issue that eluded the Bush administration for years.
Nevertheless, some internal security regressives are already recycling their 2002 Iraq war arguments for Iran. Others, like incoming House Minority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), have worked actively to undermine efforts by the Obama administration to dissolve the Arab-Israeli conflict by falsely charging that President Barack Obama is light on Israel.
The Afghanistan war debate will likely reemerge by late spring 2011. National security regressives will probably push for an open-ended U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and defend any plan to elucidate the end goals in place to end the free riding of various countries in the area on America's security umbrella and add the struggle to an end at a metre of America's choosing. Foreign policy regressives are stuck on the least efficient way to direct terrorist threats-large-scale conventional military operations in other countries lasting years. They promote this strategy even as terrorist threats migrate around the world.
Look also for internal security regressives to revive terrorism as a political issue with continued vitriolic rhetoric on Islam and Islamist extremism. The Islamophobia campaign of this past summer in which prominent conservative voices like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich participated is not probably to pass as the presidential primary heats up. Finally, a specter of isolationism and protectionism looms on the view with America's economy still struggling. More than two dozen congressional candidates from both parties are raising China's impact on America's economy in 2010 campaign ads.
As the Obama administration's second class in office draws to a close, the Senate's ratification of New START marks a small but important step forward for pragmatic internationalism and efforts to revive America's leadership role in the world.
National security regressives lost the New START fight, but they are probably to stay a vocal constituency among conservatives as the succeeding Congress comes to town in January with more than 100 new members and the Republican presidential primary fight begins next year. That campaign season will help regulate the way a divided conservative movement takes on foreign policy for the rest of this decade.
No comments:
Post a Comment