Amid the empty rhetoric that always permeates early presidential race squabblings, Rudolph Guiliani has provided a bit of reasoned and relatively detailed analysis on what he would do if elected in the areas of foreign policy.

The left will absolutely cringe at passages such as these:

The U.S. Army needs a minimum of ten new combat brigades. It may need more, but this is an appropriate baseline increase while we reevaluate our strategies and resources. We must also take a hard look at other requirements, especially in terms of submarines, modern long-range bombers, and in-flight refueling tankers. Rebuilding will not be cheap, but it is necessary. And the benefits will outweigh the costs.

“You can’t hug your kids with nuclear arms, man!”

And then, calling a traitor a traitor:

For diplomacy to succeed, the U.S. government must be united. Adversaries naturally exploit divisions. Members of Congress who talk directly to rogue regimes at cross-purposes with the White House are not practicing diplomacy; they are undermining it.

“Nancy Pelosi, white courtesy phone.”

Here’s a great big “Bingo!”:

Finally, we need to look realistically at America’s relationship with the United Nations. The organization can be useful for some humanitarian and peacekeeping functions, but we should not expect much more of it. The UN has proved irrelevant to the resolution of almost every major dispute of the last 50 years. Worse, it has failed to combat terrorism and human rights abuses. It has not lived up to the great hopes that inspired its creation. Too often, it has been weak, indecisive, and outright corrupt. The UN’s charter and the speeches of its members’ leaders have meant little because its members’ deeds have frequently fallen short. International law and institutions exist to serve peoples and nations, but many leaders act as if the reverse were true — that is, as if institutions, not the ends to be achieved, were the important thing.

And finally, a nod to the Jimmy Carters of the world:

The 9/11 generation has learned from the history of the twentieth century that America must not turn a blind eye to gathering storms. We must base our trust on the actions, rather than the words, of others. And we must be on guard against overpromising and underdelivering. Above all, we have learned that evil must be confronted — not appeased — because only principled strength can lead to a realistic peace.

Guiliani’s ideas are a reminder that there will need to be a line that we as voters will have to draw. In other words, at what level is, say, “pro life” important to me vs. a candidate who will be the most effective in the area of national security but who may be “pro-choice”?

We hear the term “one issue voter” often, and this isn’t a very bright way to go choosing somebody to place in a macrocosmic position. I consider myself a “first issue voter” — with that first qualifying issue being national security. In the big picture, economic matters, abortion and environmental issues, while important, don’t matter one bit to a people who have been killed by terrorists.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.