Mario Loyola

According to his FDD biography, Loyola worked in the Pentagon from 2005 to 2006, where he "prepared speeches and op-eds for senior officials, assisted in the final preparation and roll-out of the 2005 National Defense Strategy, and worked on global energy and China issues with the policy planning staff." His FDD bio also claims that his "experience includes researching the founding of the United Nations and its effect on international law and global security while at the American Enterprise Institute. As an Uhuru Fellow at the International Republican Institute, he conducted research for the Institute's democracy and governance programs in Africa. Before moving to Washington, DC, he practiced business law, focusing on international transactions negotiations." Clifford May is president of the FDD, where Jack Kemp and Steve Forbes are board members. Gary Bauer, Bill Kristol, Frank Gaffney, Charles Krauthammer, and Richard Perle are on FDD's board of advisers; Louis Freeh, James Woolsey, Newt Gingrich, and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) are listed as FDD "distinguished advisers."

In his writings, Loyola consistently defends the decision to invade Iraq, champions the use of preemptive force, and pushes a get-tough line on Middle East policy. In an April 4, 2007 article for the National Review Online, titled "The Politics of Pessimism," Loyola argued that Democrats had "finally thrown down the gauntlet" in insisting on a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq. Spurred by what he termed the "pessimism in the electoral center," Loyola wrote that the Democrats in Congress had received " an incentive to precipitate America's defeat in Iraq." He concluded: "Even if the Democrats are not crassly playing politics with the troops, the ugly fact is that they have a lot to lose if things start looking positive in Iraq. This is why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid—one of the most innocent and pitifully transparent politicians of the last generation—laments the 'failed policy' behind this 'failed war' at every opportunity—and especially at any mention of good news. For the Democrats, bad news out of Iraq is political insurance, and good news is poison—just as for the Republicans, the reverse is true. That bodes ill for the war effort. It has become politically expedient for the Democrats to convince the wavering middle that we have been defeated in Iraq. And there may be no better way to convince them of that 'fact' than to make it happen."

After Iran captured several British sailors in early 2007, Loyola argued that the "brilliant" move of the "mullahs" had forced the Bush administration "to blink." To combat Iran's success, argued Loyola, the administration should not allow the captured British soldiers to be used as pawns in exchange for a pledge not to intervene militarily if Tehran refuses to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency. He wrote: "T he United States must make it clear to the Iranians that abandoning the nonproliferation regime will trigger a military confrontation. The British should have defended the hostages when they were surrounded. The United States cannot now be paralyzed in its response to Iran out of a desire to protect a group of sailors from an allied country that was incapable of protecting them itself."

In the March 2004 issue of the American Enterprise, Loyola defended the "Bush Doctrine" and its call for the use of preemptive force, arguing that the UN Charter's "self-defense" provision, which allows for using military force in cases where there is an "imminent threat" ("whatever this may mean," quipped Loyola), should be translated in an age of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and rogue states as allowing for just such a military policy. He concluded: "Whether or not the president's doctrine of preemption is technically legal under international law, that doctrine is by definition consistent with the fundamental purpose of the UN—'the prevention and removal of threats to the peace.' What is inimical to that purpose is the UN's own Charter."

Loyola has been among Donald Rumsfeld's staunchest defenders. In a November 2006 National Review piece, "The DOD after Rumsfeld," Loyola argued that although Rumsfeld deserves blame for such things as his handling of the Abu Ghraib scandal, he should be remembered as a visionary. Fawned Loyola: "One of the great benefits of historical perspective is that the reputations of important figures get separated from what people thought of them in their own time. So think of who he is. Flaws and all, Rumsfeld is a visionary with a great sense of history and a great devotion to this country. His tenure has been historic. He helped to end two terrible dictatorships and began a process of military transformation that will stay in motion long into the future."

In a November 6, 2006 entry for the National Review's blog "The Corner," Loyola defended Rumsfeld from the "slamming" he had received in an Army Times editorial, arguing that the journal meant nothing to men and women in service. "What's so slimy about this is that the Army Times has created a story that will get reported as "Army Newspaper Calls for Rummy to Resign" right before the election—but no such thing has happened. This is just a random outfit that tailors USA Today articles to target the military. ... The hard truth—and I know people don't want to hear it—is that Rumsfeld is hugely popular among the military, as is obvious in any of his Town Halls and speeches to them. It will be interesting to see how the military reacts to the Army Times editorial. I wouldn't be surprised by a fairly serious blowback."

Responding to Loyola's blog entry, one military veteran's blog, "The Democratic Veteran," wrote: "I don't know who Mario Loyola is, and I don't know if he's ever been in the military himself (a Republican talking/writing head, probably not). I don't know how much it's changed (and I can't imagine it's changed all that much), but the Navy Times (same company that does the Army/AF Times) was pretty much not just read, but devoured by most service men and women. Why? They had pretty good info, they always had good stuff about pay and allowances, they had articles about duty stations and goings-on in career fields that helped folks make decisions. It was always a good resource, and it had the enviable characteristic of being "passed around" and kept in offices and such, because it was/is good reading."

Other blogs have also begun taking notice of Loyola's work. For instance, in November 2006, a writer for CrookedTimber.org slugged Loyola as an "emerging hack to be reckoned with," in response to a strained hypothetical Loyola postulated at an AEI event that involved Canadians invading Minnesota.

Government Service

Education

Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Biographies, http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies.htm.

Mario Loyola, "The Politics of Pessimism," National Review Online, April 4, 2007.

Mario Loyola, "The DOD after Rumsfeld," National Review Online, November 6, 2006.

Belle Waring, "Loyola to a Fault," CrookedTimber.org, November 12, 2006, http://crookedtimber.org/2006/11/12/loyola-to-a-fault/.

Mario Loyola, "Anti-Rumsfeld Editorial in a (Non) Army Paper," National Review Online Blog, "The Corner," November 6, 2006.

"Stupid Kidz," The Democratic Veteran, November 6, 2006.

Mario Loyola, "Nuclear Motives: Understanding Why Iran Took British Hostages," National Review Online, March 30, 2007.

Mario Loyola, "The New First Line of Defense," American Enterprise, March 2004.

For media inquiries, email rightweb@publiceye.org or call (617) 666-5300.