5stringJeff
12-15-2007, 08:41 PM
Some have complained that Mike Huckabee has no foreign policy. In Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council of Foreign Affairs (of tinfoil fame), he lays out his policy regarding the War on Terror (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87112/michael-d-huckabee/america-s-priorities-in-the-war-on-terror.html). Some tidbits:
"My administration will recognize that the United States' main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists. At the same time, my administration will never surrender any of our sovereignty, which is why I was the first presidential candidate to oppose ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would endanger both our national security and our economic interests. A more successful U.S. foreign policy needs to better explain Islamic jihadism to the American people.
...
As president, my goal in the Arab and Muslim worlds will be to calibrate a course between maintaining stability and promoting democracy. ... We must first destroy existing terrorist groups and then attack the underlying conditions that breed them: the lack of basic sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, fair courts -- which all translates into a lack of opportunity and hope...
The first thing I will do as president is send Congress my comprehensive plan for achieving energy independence within ten years of my inauguration. We will explore, we will conserve, and we will pursue all types of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, ethanol, hydrogen, clean coal, biomass, and biodiesel...
Right now, we spend about 3.9 percent of our GDP on defense, compared with about six percent in 1986, under President Ronald Reagan. We need to return to that six percent level. And we must stop using active-duty forces for nation building...
As president, I will not withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq any faster than General David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander there, recommends. I will bring our troops home based on the conditions on the ground, not the calendar on the wall. It is still too soon to reduce the U.S. counterterrorism mission and pass the torch of security to the Iraqis...
The Bush administration has properly said that it will not take the military option for dealing with Iran off the table. Neither will I. But if we do not put other options on the table, eventually a military strike will become the only viable one...And I will not waver in standing by our ally Israel...
I support going forward with the current plan to set up ten missile interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic to protect Europe from Iranian missiles...
Whereas there can be no rational dealings with al Qaeda, Iran is a nation-state seeking regional clout and playing the game of power politics we understand and can skillfully pursue. We cannot live with al Qaeda, but we might be able to live with a contained Iran...
Rather than wait for the next strike, I prefer to cut to the chase by going after al Qaeda's safe havens in Pakistan."
Mitt Romney, playing defense to Huckabee's offense, chose to go after one sentence in the article (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/15/romney_hits_huckabee_for_criti.html): "The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad." But, as most Republicans will admit, Bush's execution of the war on terrorism has not been executed well at all times, even if the intent has been good. So essentially, Huckabee is saying that he will continue the War on Terror with improved execution. For this, Mitt Romney attempts to chastise him. Ridiculous.
"My administration will recognize that the United States' main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists. At the same time, my administration will never surrender any of our sovereignty, which is why I was the first presidential candidate to oppose ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would endanger both our national security and our economic interests. A more successful U.S. foreign policy needs to better explain Islamic jihadism to the American people.
...
As president, my goal in the Arab and Muslim worlds will be to calibrate a course between maintaining stability and promoting democracy. ... We must first destroy existing terrorist groups and then attack the underlying conditions that breed them: the lack of basic sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, fair courts -- which all translates into a lack of opportunity and hope...
The first thing I will do as president is send Congress my comprehensive plan for achieving energy independence within ten years of my inauguration. We will explore, we will conserve, and we will pursue all types of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, ethanol, hydrogen, clean coal, biomass, and biodiesel...
Right now, we spend about 3.9 percent of our GDP on defense, compared with about six percent in 1986, under President Ronald Reagan. We need to return to that six percent level. And we must stop using active-duty forces for nation building...
As president, I will not withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq any faster than General David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander there, recommends. I will bring our troops home based on the conditions on the ground, not the calendar on the wall. It is still too soon to reduce the U.S. counterterrorism mission and pass the torch of security to the Iraqis...
The Bush administration has properly said that it will not take the military option for dealing with Iran off the table. Neither will I. But if we do not put other options on the table, eventually a military strike will become the only viable one...And I will not waver in standing by our ally Israel...
I support going forward with the current plan to set up ten missile interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic to protect Europe from Iranian missiles...
Whereas there can be no rational dealings with al Qaeda, Iran is a nation-state seeking regional clout and playing the game of power politics we understand and can skillfully pursue. We cannot live with al Qaeda, but we might be able to live with a contained Iran...
Rather than wait for the next strike, I prefer to cut to the chase by going after al Qaeda's safe havens in Pakistan."
Mitt Romney, playing defense to Huckabee's offense, chose to go after one sentence in the article (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/15/romney_hits_huckabee_for_criti.html): "The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad." But, as most Republicans will admit, Bush's execution of the war on terrorism has not been executed well at all times, even if the intent has been good. So essentially, Huckabee is saying that he will continue the War on Terror with improved execution. For this, Mitt Romney attempts to chastise him. Ridiculous.