Today Jon Huntsman Jr. outlined his plan for foreign policy—a critical part in any candidates platform given the amount of money we are surging into foreign conflicts as our national defecit continues to rise.
Huntsman is not a leader in the GOP race by any means. POLITICO.com cited a Fox poll at the end of September that placed Huntsman at 4%. Take Fox with a grain of salt, but either way Hunstman is definitely not a frontrunner. He could be vying for a VP nomination though.
Huntsman, the former U.S. ambassador to China, criticized Obama’s foreign policy heavily while outlining a plan that weakens U.S. presence in Afghanistan but demands strong presence elsewhere in the nation, (though where exactly he is referring to has yet to be revealed).
The Los Angeles Times quoted Hunstman in saying:
“The world needs American leadership now more than ever. Yet we are struggling to provide it. President Obama’s policies have weakened America, and thus diminished America’s presence on the global stage. We must correct our course.”
That’s interesting Hunstman and I wish you would elaborate as to how it’s weakened our presence on the global stage because quite frankly we are a very active presence (for better or for worse, I’m not taking sides) on the global stage. According to a Pulse Opinion Research poll, 72% of Americans actually think the U.S. is too involved abroad.
Any way, political showmanship aside, let’s take a look at the details of Huntsman’s plan. His main points are:
· reducing the number of troops in Afghanistan within a year of election (sound familiar?)
· strong relations with Israel
· broader use of free-trade (including with Cuba...bet Bachmann isn’t too happy about that one)
And well that’s about as specific as we get…
Vague points include:
· “We need more agility, more intelligence, and more economic engagement with the world.” –according to the L.A Times in response to Romney’s call for an increase in Navy shipbuilding and missiles as well as rolling back Defense Department cuts.
· and a transformation in U.S. Defense spending: “It may surprise some people to learn that we spend more on defense today than at the height of the Cold War,” he said. “Indeed, we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. We still have remnants of a top-heavy, post-Cold War infrastructure. It needs to be transformed to reflect the 21st century world and the growing asymmetric threats we face.” –again according to the L.A. Times.
First off, let’s get real here. Is anyone really surprised that we spend more today than we did at the height of the Cold War? Secondly, I’m not saying I agree or disagree with any of these things…mainly because I’m not exactly sure what I would be disagreeing with.
I appreciate Huntsman wanting to take a more moderate side than the typical conservative, but if he’s going to go that route he needs to be clear on exactly what his plans are.
Going moderate on foreign policy just to counter Romney is not going to be effective, and throwing around words like ‘transformation’ and ‘change’ (again, anyone?) make you a politician, not a leader. What this country needs is a leader. Ron Paul may be absolutely crazy but that man is a leader. He’s not afraid to be honest and to the point even if his policy (like legalizing all drugs) goes completely against the norm. Further more he consistently stands by his policies. Whether you agree with his ideals or not, GOP candidates could learn a thing or two from him.
As for me, I haven’t learned much about Huntsman or his actual plans for foreign policy…but I’d like to if he ever want to really share.
I took a look at what www.nationaljournal.com reported on Huntsman's foreign policy plan.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand, Hunstman's core philosophy is to help rebuild America's economy through tax reform and wasteful spending on armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I agree with this idea (although his tax reform may be a bit too extreme) and I think it will help America's foreign policy image.
However, I'm curious as well regarding transforming today's military to deal with asymmetric threats. Thinking about how the military attacks terrorist threats, it's possible that means decreasing overall spending and channeling other spending into drone strikes and smaller strike teams.
It's a murky topic. I think the government needs to reduce spending by creating smaller forces that can react to terrorist activity effectively.
What about you?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou're right in thinking Huntsman is vague and undetailed in his speeches. The candidates are going to avoid low-level discussions for a while as to avoid the inevitable pin downs and incoherencies those find. This sort of vague speech is what a 08 Obama would have said. I still have a good impression of Huntsman overall though. Compared to his fellow GOP candidates, he's somewhat sane. But that is like congratulating the thinnest kid at fat camp.
ReplyDeleteChase I too think that we should consolidate the military into smaller forces and train more for drone attacks. Creating a larger reserve, with less active troops would save us money and lives, while still keeping us prepared if duty ever was to call.
ReplyDeleteI'm also curious to see if the GOP primaries continue on the same "flavor of the week" path that they've been on ever since they started. Meteoric rises and falls seem to be the trend this year, so I wouldn't count Huntsman out just yet.