Sincerely impressed by Giuliani's "Foreign Affairs" piece

Find it here.

First off, you have to remember this is a campaign piece, so truly tough choices are put off and Rudy's going to be for more things than he can possibly support.

But, taking that caveat in stride, this is a great piece.

The description of the era is good, and the proposals seem solid. He suitably distances himself from the realists. He sounds all the proper noises on Israel and our complex relationships with China and Russia while saying that no great power should be considered our "inherent enemy." He wants a bigger military in terms of bodies (agree) but likewise wants to buy all the familiar toys--to include that toy-without-peer (or any record of success) known as missile defense (not realistic, but every candidate will promise it, I guarantee you, along with some more subs and other hugely expensive platforms that will have virtually no role in any future conflicts--save the all-important "covert insertion of SOF forces," who, hilariously enough, can often just fly by commercial air--Duh! Their whole job is to blend in!). He says he's open to talking with Iran, but only from a position of strength (as opposed to today's weakness?), and so on and so on.

Sure it's chock full of orthodoxies (which makes "Foreign Affairs" a perfect venue). But also no mistakes, plenty of nice notes sounded, and one truly bold proposal (actually, the only specific one in the whole piece):

Economic investment and cultural influence work best where civil society already exists. But sometimes America will be compelled to act in those parts of the world where few institutions function properly -- those zones that lack not only good governance but any governance -- and in states teetering on the edge of conflict or recovering from it. Faced with a choice between leaving a troubled zone to anarchy or helping build functioning civil societies with accountable governments that can serve as bulwarks against barbarism, the American people will choose the latter.

To assist these missions, the next U.S. president should restructure and coordinate all the agencies involved in that process. A hybrid military-civilian organization -- a Stabilization and Reconstruction Corps staffed by specially trained military and civilian reservists -- must be developed. The agency would undertake tasks such as building roads, sewers, and schools; advising on legal reform; and restoring local currencies. The United States did similar work, and with great success, in Germany, Japan, and Italy after World War II. But even with the rich civic traditions in these nations, the process took a number of years. We must learn from our past if we want to win the peace as well as the war.

Naturally, I approve of that.

So let the China hawks have their subs and the Israeli supporters their missile defense. Those two were largely in the bag to begin with, on the GOP side. But the blended post-conflict/disaster force? That one was a genuine sell that a lot of us have been pushing for quite some time. I know of my influence on the subject only from the one F2F with Giuliani and the fact he's read both PNM and BFA (the latter is reflected, methinks, in his focus on strengthening the international system and being open to thinking about revamping its main institutions).

The term "stabilization and reconstruction" is a safe one (Bush created a do-nothing office named that in State) and citing civilian reserves clearly builds on Bush's likewise go-nowhere proposal for a Civilian Reserve Corps. What sets this proposal apart is the "hybrid military-civilian" notion (which puts it squarely in my ballpark of "SysAdmin" with "specially-trained military"). Also Giuliani clearly suggests a new bureaucratic center of gravity, for he says "the next U.S. president should restructure and coordinate all the agencies involved in that process" and that the end result would be an "agency."

All in all, a stellar effort, and compared to the recent ones by Obama and Romney, especially clear-headed.

Nothing here to counter my assertion that the right sort of change needed for our military is most likely achieved under a moderate Republican.

Of course, that's only one calculation to consider, and my bias towards it is duly admitted.

Comments

[Jim F.]

This easily the most clear headed and well thought out foreign policy material to come out of any of the candidates so far. (Tancredo's comments should have automatically led to his elimination from the race)

I like Obama's idea of talking to the leadership of other countries, but I also get the impression that when it comes to blows he might be the type to lob a few cruise missiles into a country and call it a day. As we've seen in the past, that's not very effective.

Unfortunately, presidential elections aren't often settled on who has the best overall plan, but who has the best sound-bite. Especially when it comes to something as complex as foreign policy, which is a subject that most Americans don't see as something that affects their day-to-day lives.

It should be an interesting 15 months leading up to Nov '08.

[zenpundit]

"Sure it's chock full of orthodoxies (which makes "Foreign Affairs" a perfect venue). "

LOL! All too true. Another way of saying unimaginative and politically safe, which is why I no longer subscribe to Foreign Affairs.

Outside of the book reviews which are handy, FA has only about one or two genuinely interesting articles a year, tops.

[Joel Morgan]

I'm glad to hear that Giuliani has read PNM and BFA. I was hoping that someone would stick those books in the hands of ALL the candidates before they become too unapproachable.

Your F2F with Giuliani was positive or mere "Yeah, I read your books" fluff? (Followed by the under-his-breath "Who's he?")

[PamC]

(as opposed to today's weakness?)

I think this may be a stab at the State Department and their tendency to be wishy-washy on hard issues... but that's just a guess.

[Dirk]

I'm going to take issue with Jim F's “limited to cruise missiles” assessment of the Obama camp's willingness to use force. The national security types associated with his campaign (especially in the persons of Sarah Sewell and by extension Wesley Clark) have focused on the issues, Dr. Barnett has rightly concerned himself with, to a greater extent than those associated with any other campaign. They’ve done the work on counter-insurgency, on nation building, have a demonstrated disposition toward putting boots on the ground and have wrapped it up in what Samantha Power has started calling an empiricist vision of foreign policy. Now, maybe they’re wrong, and that would have been a fair criticism, but until one of the campaigns hires Dr. Barnett, the Obama camp is boasting the only approach to National Security and Foreign Policy that hasn’t been discredited by the last six years.

I mean, the “realists” were discredited on 9/11 and the neo-conservatives and interventionalist by Iraq.

Don’t you think it’s time to try another approach?