" />

Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Death and Texas: Rick Perry’s Neocon Clues

Print Friendly

Compared to past election cycles, this year’s Republican presidential field has thus far offered an unusual level of diversity on foreign policy. While the field does not fully reflect the level of war-weariness that has crept gradually into segments of the GOP congressional caucus (to say nothing about the weariness of war spending), it has nonetheless accommodated certain deviations from the party’s nationalist-neoconservative bent of 2004 and 2008.


In the extreme, libertarian candidates Ron Paul and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson have called for significant rollbacks in U.S. foreign adventures, as well as a tightening of the spigot of military spending that nourishes them.


Less extreme – but still arguably more dovish than President Obama – has been Jon Huntsman, the former ambassador to China whose foreign policy advisors have come overwhelmingly from the realist school of the George H.W. Bush era. Huntsman has advocated a much more rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan than the president has.


Other candidates, notably Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, and Herman Cain, have with varying degrees of success attempted to blend tea party populism with strands of Christian Zionism and Islamophobia. The result has been mixed messages on the war in Libya but a decidedly hawkish tenor overall.


Of all the candidates, it has been Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty who have most closely embraced traditional GOP hawkishness, although also to differing degrees. Romney, while calling for increases in military spending and aggressively promoting American exceptionalism as a basis for U.S. foreign policy, has also acknowledged a desire to “bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can, consistent with the word that that comes from our generals.” An advisor described Romney’s orientation as “American primacy with a heavy dose of selective engagement.” Pawlenty, meanwhile, while eschewing the label “neoconservative,” has assiduously rehashed neoconservative talking points on Israel, Iran, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and Russia, earning plaudits from the likes of Michael Ledeen and the Weekly Standard.


Still, whether for policy reasons or because none of these candidates has yet proved particularly strong, the GOP foreign policy establishment in Washington – much like the GOP establishment at large – has yet to line up behind any particularly candidate. Indeed, there remains a palpable appetite for new candidates.


Texas Gov. Rick Perry, George W. Bush’s successor in Austin and the longest-serving governor in the country, has received the brunt of recent attention from Republicans seeking out new standard bearers. Certainly, Perry’s telegenic style and well documented conservatism on social and fiscal matters would make him an appealing choice for GOP activists searching for a “bridge” candidate between the tea party and the traditional Republican establishment.


Given the rather unusual political environment, however, one might wonder whether Perry’s right-wing views extend to matters of foreign policy. But by all available accounts, they do.


Indeed, Perry’s recent overtures on foreign policy have played a significant role in indicating that he is serious about considering the race in the first place. It started at least as early as May, when Perry came out against President Obama’s assertion that Israel’s 1967 borders should be a starting point for negotiations about the contours of a future Palestinian state. “As someone who has visited Israel numerous times,” he said, “I know that that it is impracticable to revert to the 1967 lines. President Obama is asking our Israeli friends to give up too much security and territory as a prelude to a renewed peace process.”


The following month, Perry wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder advocating the investigation and prosecution of any American participants in the international Gaza Freedom Flotilla. “I respectfully request that the U.S. Department of Justice take immediate steps to investigate, enjoin and bring to justice all parties found to be in violation of U.S. law by their participation in these efforts,” Perry wrote.


The letter earned him praise from the conservative blog Red State. “It appears that if Perry is elected President,” wrote one blogger, “the American left will no longer be allowed to spread their leftist agenda abroad in violation of U.S. law and in support of terrorist organizations.” The blogger also praised Perry’s refusal to stay the execution of Humberto Leal, an undocumented Mexican resident of Texas who was denied consular access when he was charged with the rape and murder an of a Texas girl. In so doing, Perry defied the entreaties of President Obama and U.N. officials, as well as the United States’ obligations under the Vienna convention, which calls for foreign nationals to be offered assistance from their home consulates when arrested abroad. Red State lauded Perry for resisting what it called “a clear attempt by the Obama administration to subordinate American laws and the legal system to international opinion and the scrutiny of foreign governments.”


Behind the scenes, Perry has apparently been seeking the advice of a number of prominent neoconservatives and nationalist hardliners. According to the National Review, Perry held a recent briefing with Douglas Feith and William Luti, neoconservative veterans of the Bush-era Office of Special Plans, the Pentagon intelligence center that churned out alleged misinformation about the connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda in advance of the Iraq War. The briefing apparently also included Andrew McCarthy, a National Review columnist and co-chair at the right-wing Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Even the often-hawkish New Republic called McCarthy “a crazy man” and wondered why Perry would take any advice from him. Topping it all off was the revelation by Politico that the meeting had been convened by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.


Of course, candidates often seek advice from anyone who will offer it, and Republican foreign policy voices will likewise offer it to any candidate who asks for it. But the Texas governor’s early moves suggest that a Perry administration would share much more with the Bush administration than a home state.

— Peter Certo

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, has been selected by President Trump to replace National Security Adviser McMaster, marking a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.

The Institute for the Study of War is a D.C.-based counterinsurgency think tank that has supported long-term U.S. military intervention in the Greater Middle East, especially Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

New NSA John Bolton represents an existential threat to the Iran nuclear deal and any hopes for peace in the region.

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.