Conservatives, much like other political groups, are not expected to have a unified position on policies that transcend almost all corners of the globe and cover numerous personal, and at times contradictory, interests. But there are some principles that are common to any definition of a conservative approach to foreign policy.
What we are discussing is American conservatism, which is something separate and different from European, East Asian, or Middle Eastern conservatism. It begins with an American ideology that finds its roots in the writings of the Founding Fathers, who themselves were an enlightened group of men who were familiar not only with the American mind but also with Aristotle, Cicero, Locke and others.
We have an obligation to try to reconcile to the best of our ability the ideals of the Founding Fathers with ever-changing conditions around the globe. The Founding Fathers left a legacy of both a limited government and a government of laws.
Conservatives have to show consistency in opposing the growth of government. They cannot rail at every minor expansion of congressional or executive powers in the domestic arena, and then casually bestow unlimited powers on the executive in foreign affairs.
A “war president” is the antithesis of limited government. The war on terror has been a conduit for expanding the powers of government, and for increased allocations to security agencies that are not transparent to the public.
Conservatives who believe in an open government, a limited government, in the Bill of Rights, may want to reconsider how this “war” is being conducted. Conservatives have the right to see to it that laws applying to foreign relations are implemented in a manner that serves the intent for which they were enacted.
For example, it is legitimate for conservatives to worry that the NSA may have gone beyond the limits authorized by the Patriot Act, and to support efforts to limit NSA authority, as was proposed by Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich. and Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky.
Conservatives believe that the United States must have a strong military establishment, but differ among themselves on how American military power should be used and how much the military establishment should cost. “Strong” military is not necessarily synonymous with a “large” or “expensive” military, let alone a “wasteful” one.
Recent large-scale military involvement in other countries should give pause to all Americans, conservatives included. Conservatives will be better off distancing themselves from wrongful deeds that run contrary to American and/or international law, even if committed by political allies.
The concept of a “perpetual war,” like many concepts arising from the recent war on terror, needs to be evaluated and ultimately rejected. Conservatism is not compatible with a state of perpetual chaos. Conservatives can’t condone a policy of “creative chaos” (adopted in the last Republican administration) that advocates destabilizing societies to see if better societies can emerge. Social engineering on a large-scale, especially in a foreign land where even a major power has limited control, is not what conservatives do, nor what American ideals demand.
Conservatives should not condone waging war on credit. The U.S. national debt is large and getting larger. Congress has been lax in disclosing “unfunded obligations,” including the cost of wars. It is important to insist on disclosing unfunded costs, including those of the security state and of foreign wars.
Our belief in the U.S. as a dominant world power should not drive us into arrogance, nor generate undue fear. We are “the most influential and productive nation in the world,” as President Eisenhower stated in his farewell address on January 17, 1961. President Eisenhower continued: “Undoubtedly proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches, and military strength, but on how we use power in the interest of world peace and human betterment.”
Dr. Fuad K. Suleiman spent 25 years working in international development and is an adjunct visiting professor at St. Mary’s College of Maryland teaching courses on U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and counterterrorism.
Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
