Rudy Giuliani’s Foreign Policy Plan

Much has been written about Rudy Giuliani’s foreign policy plan (called “Towards a Realistic Peace”), most of which is negative. Liberals – of course – wasted no time attacking Giuliani’s plan which they consider to be too hawkish and, again of course, neo-conservative. However, not just liberals criticized Giuliani: conservatives like James Joyner were not exactly impressed either. Joyner wrote:

It is not particularly realistic — let alone Realist — and certainly does not contemplate peace.

He adds:

I must concur in Matt Yglesias‘ judgment: “this man is batshit insane.”

For a time, Giuliani was my favorite of the 2008 candidates. He’s got serious executive experience, is a charismatic leader, and sufficiently moderate on the social issues that I thought he had the chance to put together a 60 percent coalition to break the polarization that has so poisoned American politics in recent years. While I disagree with him on abortion and some other issues, I was able to put that aside for a variety of practical reasons.

Unfortunately, the more I learn about Giuliani, the less I like him. His chief advantage, the sense that he’s a grown-up who will take a pragmatic but aggressive role in fighting the Islamist terrorists, is undermined by his unserious pandering…

Essentially, he wants to massively increase a defense budget that already spends more than the rest of the countries on the planet combined so as to buy more submarines and anti-missile systems to protect us against a land-based guerrilla movement. We’re then going to use that military to go in, apparently, to topple every regime we don’t like and to wipe out every instance of non-democratic badness and spend decades occupying those countries. All, of course, while winning friends and influencing people.

We’re going to have a diplomatic policy that finally lives up to the caricature of Bush policy. We’re not going to talk to anyone unless they already agree with us. Our diplomats are simply going to be propaganda instruments from now on. And our media, too! And we’ll win the hearts and minds of Muslims everywhere by allying ourselves even more closely with the Israelis while punishing the Palestinian people.

I strongly urge you to read James’ entire post. It is a good read.

Back to the piece that James’ post was a reaction to: “Towards a Realistic Peace.” Even though the entire blogosphere wrote about it, I did not. The reason: I simply did not have the time. I apologize for this, but I think it is more honest and wise for me to refrain from commenting on something as important as this, until I have actually read the entire piece (not just skimmed through it). So, now that I did, I want to comment on it as well.

In short: although I would not use the words James and Matt used, I do agree with the general assessment – Giuliani’s foreign policy plan spells disaster. It is counterproductive and oversimplified. Using force easily, opposing a Palestinian state, etc. will only increase the hatred already alive and well in the Middle East. Giuliani is in many ways quite a good candidate, and I think that he is quite electable, but foreign policy is not his cup of tea. The problem, of course, is that foreign policy is an incredibly important part of what a president does. If America’s foreign policy is unwise, America and the world suffer. It is therefore that, if I were American, I could not endorse and / or vote for Giuliani (and because I consider him to be too authoritarian).

America had a foreign policy amateur in the White House for seven years now (almost): that is long enough. Although I do not suffer from BDS, I do believe that Bush has been quite a horrible president, especially regarding his foreign policy. Giuliani gives me the impression – and reading his article only strengthened that impression – that he wants to copy Bush’s foreign policy. This means that if he becomes president, we will have another eight years of international divide and conquer. No – the war on terrorism is a big war, one that will most likely last for decades, but it seems that we should learn from our mistakes. If we have learned one thing it is that Bush’s policies might not be the most effective ones possible. Those who want to continue these policies, do not seem to have learned that lesson and should, therefore, not be allowed to lead the most powerful country on earth. At least, I believe that having such a person in charge of the world’s only superpower would be bad for just about everyone; the Middle East, Europe, and America herself of course.