Bret Stephens: A Republican Foreign Policy
Mr. Stephens writes the Journal's Global View column on foreign affairs, which runs every Tuesday in the U.S. and is also published in the European and Asian editions of the paper.
What should the Republican Party stand for when it comes to the foreign policy of the United States?
Under Barack Obama, the impulse driving most major foreign policy decisions has been consensus: Consensus at the United Nations, where the administration has been notably reluctant to use its veto; consensus with the Arab League, whose views led to action against Libya but passivity toward Syria; consensus when it comes to arms control with Russia, or sanctions on Iran. Tellingly, the president's one inarguable foreign policy success—killing bin Laden—was a purely unilateral action.
The GOP ought to have a different watchword for America and the world: credibility. The credibility of our promises, and of our threats. The credibility of the dollar, and of our debt. The credibility of our arms, and of our willingness, when decision is made, to use them to decisive effect. The Roman epigram that has become the unofficial motto of the Marine Corps sums it up nicely: "No better friend; no worse enemy."
When it comes to presidents and credibility (or lack thereof) probably nobody will do worse than James Buchanan, who in his final message to Congress declared secession to be illegal, while adding that nothing could be done to stop it. Then again, in matters of foreign policy Mr. Obama is setting some benchmarks of his own...