10-23-2018 04:35:06 PM -0700
10-23-2018 12:28:52 PM -0700
10-23-2018 11:29:26 AM -0700
10-23-2018 08:15:43 AM -0700
10-23-2018 06:52:12 AM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.
X


Stretch, grab a late afternoon cup of caffeine and get caught up on the most important news of the day with our Coffee Break newsletter. These are the stories that will fill you in on the world that's spinning outside of your office window - at the moment that you get a chance to take a breath.
Sign up now to save time and stay informed!

Will Giuliani or Bolton Decide America’s Foreign Policy? Or Will Rand Paul's Views Prevail?

Rumors are circulating that former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani is one of Donald Trump’s top choices for secretary of State. Another is John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Both men hold varying degrees of conventional right-of-center foreign policy viewpoints, although Bolton is probably more to the right of Giuliani and has a more confrontational style. That’s probably why Senator Rand Paul likes neither. Paul believes that both Giuliani and Bolton are adherents to the same failed policies we have been operating under in Iraq and the Middle East.

Paul’s disapproval is not surprising. As a libertarian-leaning republican, Paul adheres to an isolationist/non-interventionist-style foreign policy (although he doesn’t like the term “isolationist”). It's a policy that is partly justified by the premise that the federal government actually has very limited constitutional authority to conduct extensive global initiatives.

Giuliani’s positions on Russia (not a military threat) and China (an important trading partner) are somewhat unexciting. But he places fighting terrorism, including ISIS, and containing Iran at the top of his priority list.

As for Bolton, if you can measure a person by his friends or enemies, the liberal Huffington Post called Bolton an “extreme militant.” Bolton is a strong defender of American sovereignty and does favor strong military actions against America’s worst enemies. His tendency to speak his mind has placed him in a different category than typical diplomats who spend most of their time talking in polite diplomatese.

To people like Paul, both Giuliani and Bolton support strong international involvement that typically lead to unwinnable wars for people who appear largely ungrateful. In fact, both Rand Paul and his father, former congressman Ron Paul, have articulated a libertarian-leaning foreign policy that sounds very appealing to a war-fatigued America. But ISIS has put Rand Paul in an awkward position to the point of causing him to backpedal and soften his foreign policy viewpoints.

Paul’s flip-flop hints that the real question is: What exactly are Americans weary of? Is it the war on terror, or is the way we have conducted the war on terror? In the latter case, one could argue that since Vietnam (and maybe since Korea) America has never fought a war to win. Rather, we fight limited “actions” under restricted rules of engagement. These rules of engagement put our military personnel in harm’s way and drain our treasury for no foreseeable goal or outcome. Without a clear end goal, wars just drag on and ultimately lead to failure.

It's possible that Paul has learned that isolationism or non-interventionism cannot be taken as absolutes. They are appealing, but their appeal fades rapidly when you study a geopolitical map and throw in a pinch of human behavior. History shows that global peace results from the stabilization that comes from the actions of a superpower.

Throughout history, a number of superpowers have instituted their unique versions of hegemony. One of the most famous was the Roman Empire, where in the first and second centuries a large part of the Western world saw a long period of relative calm referred to as the Pax Romana, or the Peace of Rome.

Peace and freedom are not mutually inclusive terms, so historically a superpower presence does not necessarily imply establishment of rights and freedoms as we would define them today. Rather, it refers to periods of minimal interregional warfare, usually accompanied by extensive trade and economic growth.

The general expression for a superpower’s regional or global presence is Pax Imperia, and the world has seen many Pax Imperia. Besides Rome, some others were: Pax Sumeria, Pax Babylonia, Pax Greca, Pax Sinica, Pax Mongolica, Pax Inca, Pax Ottomana, and Pax Britannica.

But in 1776, there appeared a new kid on the block. The shift to Pax Americana from Pax Britannica started as early as America’s attack on the Barbary Coast in 1801, and the issuance of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. This shift accelerated throughout the 19th century, and one of the first international benefits of the fledgling Pax Americana was the Panama Canal, the global benefits of which are incalculable.