A great example of the confusing and disparate enigma that is Rudy Giuliani lies in the interpretations of his policy statement in Foreign Affairs, Toward a Realistic Peace.  The differences are striking.  Add the contradictory opinions re: his immigration policy and the obvious question is "who is the real Rudy."

Before offering links/excerpts from elsewhere and others’ opinions, first I offer my own look at "Toward a Realistic Peace."  And therefore, you will either have to read through this lengthy write-up or simply skip to the bottom.  Please don’t be misled by my words (analysis or review I am not sure), even to the extent that I may seem to agree with his written positions.  I still do not support Rudy Giuliani for the Republican nomination.  And I still have a tremendous amoount of admiration for Rudy’s handling of NY City after the September 11th attacks.  PS: There are also two interesting "tidbits" for you at the bottom of this post.

Clearly, he is right when stating that the New World began on September 11, 2001.  Our complacency was shattered by a homeland attack by jihadists who had been allowed to percolate their hatred for decades (mind you, decades means before World Trade Center #1).  He also states the obvious when he acknowledges that on that day, we not only lost our innocence, but had no choice but to abandon our defensive posture.  Finally, he clearly identifies this new era as a "Long War."

The next U.S. president will face three key foreign policy challenges. First and foremost will be to set a course for victory in the terrorists’ war on global order. The second will be to strengthen the international system that the terrorists seek to destroy. The third will be to extend the benefits of the international system in an ever-widening arc of security and stability across the globe. The most effective means for achieving these goals are building a stronger defense, developing a determined diplomacy, and expanding our economic and cultural influence. Using all three, the next president can build the foundations of a lasting, realistic peace.

Thus, he calls for a realistic approach to maintaining or re-establishing the peace "preserving and extending American ideals."  He differentiates between idealism (how to define our goals) and realism (how define our methods).  In this dangerous World, Rudy defines our enemies who attacked us on September 11th because of "unrealistic and inconsistent" responses to previous terrorist attacks.

It is from this point that Rudy departs on a philosophy that leads to fighting a counter-realist war, broadening the definition of America’s interests and goals, and break the mold of the expected (my words and interpretation).

We cannot achieve peace by promising too much or indulging false hopes. This next decade can be a positive era for our country and the world so long as the next president realistically mobilizes the 9/11 generation for the momentous tasks ahead.

Rudy’s position continues that we fight a war against an enemy with a violent, strong and embedded ideology…an enemy that fights without uniforms…a stateless enemy without traditional assets or infrastructure, and thus can move freely across geographic boundaries (my words), and we fight an enemy who was emboldened by signs of weakness:

  • the World Trade Center in 1993
  • the
    Khobar Towers in 1996
  • our embassies in Kenya
    and Tanzania in 1998
  • the U.S.S. Cole in 2000
  • Our
    retreat from Lebanon in 1983
  • Our retreat from Somalia in 1993

He further suggests that his vision is that Iraq and Afghanistan will exist as battles for the next President to deal with, and that perhaps, these battles will persist, and that consequences of failure are easier to predict than the outcomes of success.

Our aim should be to help them build accountable, functioning governments that can serve the needs of their populations, reduce violence within their borders, and eliminate the export of terror…

…we can predict the consequences of failure: Afghanistan would revert to being a safe haven for terrorists, and Iraq would become another one — larger, richer, and more strategically located. Parts of Iraq would undoubtedly fall under the sway of our enemies, particularly Iran, which would use its influence to direct even more terror at U.S. interests and U.S. allies than it does today. The balance of power in the Middle East would tip further toward terror, extremism, and repression. America’s influence and prestige — not just in the Middle East but around the world — would be dealt a shattering blow…

Thus, abandoning the fight prematurely would once again signal weakness and lack of resolve.  He writes that if our goal is to defeat the insurgency, will lead to a broader and stronger ability to fight the spread of Islamic fundamentalist jihad.

Succeeding in Iraq and Afghanistan is necessary but not sufficient. Ultimately, these are only two battlegrounds in a wider war. The United States must not rest until the al Qaeda network is destroyed and its leaders, from Osama bin Laden on down, are killed or captured. And the United States must not rest until the global terrorist movement and its ideology are defeated.

Defeating al Qaeda and bin Laden being killed or captured is a departure from the actions of the current Administration.  If that is the goal, then non-traditional actions (that "realism") must define how we fight the "Long War" that includes expanded covert actions, including paramilitary actions and cooperative efforts with foreign governments (not necessarily allies - my words).  Now hold your hats…

For 15 years, the de facto policy of both Republicans and Democrats has been to ask the U.S. military to do increasingly more with increasingly less. The idea of a post-Cold War "peace dividend" was a serious mistake — the product of wishful thinking and the opposite of true realism. As a result of taking this dividend, our military is too small to meet its current commitments or shoulder the burden of any additional challenges that might arise. We must rebuild a military force that can deter aggression and meet the wide variety of present and future challenges. When America appears bogged down and unready to face aggressors, it invites conflict.

  • Expanded military brigades

  • submarines
  • modern long-range bombers
  • in-flight refueling tankers
  • national missile defense system

Grand scale re-militarization of the United States, the only current World superpower to engage in a massive arms program.  Now personally, I’m not so sure that the Russian government, especially with its most recent saber-rattlings would countenance such "aggressive" steps by the U.S. without mounting a similar arms upgrade in Russia.  I don’t personally like the implication of this.  But in the same beath, I must admit that his interpretation that rogue governments and radical Islamists will not back down to a threat of mutually assured destruction in the old terms of the Cold War (then again, this is far from a "cold war").

Going further…Rudy looks to expanded intelligence and technical capabilities to prevent a chemical or biological attack.  He also calls for the expansion and strengthening of the Proliferation Security Initiative.  Rudy does not however explain how he would prevent rogue governments and radical Islamists from getting their hands on and using such WMDs (a priority of Giuliani’s).

  • increased detection capabilities for CBRN
  • port and border security
  • expand  electronic surveillance or legal interrogation

Rudy also calls for what he calls "Determined Diplomacy" to be linked to our  military, economic, and moral superiority.

Diplomacy should never be a tool that our enemies can manipulate to their advantage. Holding serious talks may be advisable even with our adversaries, but not with those bent on our destruction or those who cannot deliver on their agreements.

Iran is a case in point…

…The next U.S. president should take inspiration from Ronald Reagan’s actions during his summit with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjav�k in 1986: he was open to the possibility of negotiations but ready to walk away if talking went nowhere. The lesson is never talk for the sake of talking and never accept a bad deal for the sake of making a deal. Those with whom we negotiate — whether ally or adversary — must know that America has other options…

…As President John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address, "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate…"

Well, in pursuing this, Rudy says he would redefine the diplomatic mission and reform the State Department.  Further, he calls for U.S. foerign policy to lead toward strengthening the "International System."

  • strengthen international system
  • regard no great power as our inherent adversary
  • re-examine NATO’s role and open membership
  • strengthen alliances in Asia, with Russia and with China
  • recognize that despite the UN’s flaws…the great objectives of humanity would
    become even more difficult to achieve without mechanisms for
    international discussion.

Beyond all of this, Rudy states. realistically that when pursuing our goals, like free elections, unforeseen results, like the election of Hamas, will occur.

The next president must champion human rights and speak out when they are violated. America should continue to use its influence to bring attention to individual abuses and use a full range of inducements and pressures to try to end them. Securing the rights of men, women, and children everywhere should be a core commitment of any country that counts itself as part of the civilized world. Whether with friends, allies, or adversaries, democracy will always be an issue in our relations and part of the conversation.

I end this segment with a direct quote (paste) of his concluding paragraphs:

PRINCIPLED STRENGTH
Civilization must stand up and combat the
current collapse of governance, the rise of violence, and the spread of
chaos and fear in many parts of the world. To turn back this tide of
terror and defeat the violent forces of disorder wherever they appear,
America must play an even more active role to strengthen the
international state system.

In this decade, for the first time in
human history, half of the world’s population will live in cities. I
know from personal experience that when security is reliably
established in a troubled part of a city, normal life rapidly
reestablishes itself: shops open, people move back in, children start
playing ball on the sidewalks again, and soon a decent and law-abiding
community returns to life. The same is true in world affairs. Disorder
in the world’s bad neighborhoods tends to spread. Tolerating bad
behavior breeds more bad behavior. But concerted action to uphold
international standards will help peoples, economies, and states to
thrive. Civil society can triumph over chaos if it is backed by
determined action.

After the attacks of 9/11, President Bush put
America on the offensive against terrorists, orchestrating the most
fundamental change in U.S. strategy since President Harry Truman
reoriented American foreign and defense policy at the outset of the
Cold War. But times and challenges change, and our nation must be
flexible. President Dwight Eisenhower and his successors accepted
Truman’s framework, but they corrected course to fit the specific
challenges of their own times. America’s next president must also craft
polices to fit the needs of the decade ahead, even as the nation stays
on the offensive against the terrorist threat.

The 9/11
generation has learned from the history of the twentieth century that
America must not turn a blind eye to gathering storms. We must base our
trust on the actions, rather than the words, of others. And we must be
on guard against overpromising and underdelivering. Above all, we have
learned that evil must be confronted — not appeased — because only
principled strength can lead to a realistic peace.

Also, from the American Spectator, Rudy’s War on Terror 2.0.  The article clearly supports Rudy’s positions as expressed in the Foreign Affairs piece.

So now, where are the contradictions and inconsistencies?

I remain unconvinced and a non-supporter or Rudy for many reasons…he writes a good paper though, and gives good speeches.

Perhaps the best commentary I’ve yet read on Rudy’s Foreign Affairs article is found in Giuliani’s Escape from the Real World on Real Clear Politics in which it is written:

The call for going on offense is characteristic of Giuliani’s entire foreign policy — simple, muscular in tone and cheerfully divorced from the world we live in. His chief tactic is sounding pugnacious. But if tough talk were all we needed, the war in Iraq would be over, North Korea would be a model of decorum, and Iran would have given up its quest for nuclear weapons.

On today’s five-stop swing through Iowa, he seldom mentions Iraq. But writing in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, Giuliani calls for sticking with the current policy for as long as it takes, because we can’t accept "the consequences of failure." Such as? "Our enemies today would conclude that America’s will is weak and the civilization we pledged to defend is tired. Failure would be an invitation for more war, in even more difficult and dangerous circumstances."

It doesn’t seem to have occurred to him that lamenting the results of failure is not the same thing as averting it. What Giuliani never addresses is: What if we can’t find a way to succeed? Stubbornness is not a strategy.

From the anti-Rudy left at Salon (I think): Giuliani’s dangerous bluster
From the pro-Rudy right (and anti-Edwards camp) in Contentions Magazine: Giuliani vs. Edwards

But lets examine Rudy’s contradictions when it comes to immigration policy here as well.

From the undeclared Fred Thompson camp: Rudy Giuliani Affirmed "Sanctuary" of Illegal Aliens as New York City Mayor.  Yes he did, yes he did!  It was well known that NY City was an open city, a sanctuary city,  for illegal aliens.

Now for some real confusion and contradiction on Immigration policy from two conservative Republican Congressmen:

Congressman Peter King (R-NY) against Mitt Romney and for Rudy Giuliani: The two Mitt Romneys.

Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Tx) against Rudy Giuliani and for Mitt Romney,

I’ve watched with some bafflement this past week as former Gov. Mitt Romney created his latest position of convenience, this time on the issue of illegal immigration…

…Contrast that with former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who spoke
out on the problem of illegal immigration while in office with a clear
focus on the safety and security of city residents. And while Mr.
Giuliani very publicly called on the federal government to enforce
immigration laws, he also faced an extreme situation of a city with an
overflow illegal-immigrant population and a city-wide crime crisis…

Enforcing our Immigration Laws.

…That is why the practice of
creating sanctuary policies in places like New York City is so
troubling. "Sanctuary cities" tell those who are here illegally that
the laws of this country do not matter. Sanctuary policies create
virtual amnesty zones for illegal immigrants...

…Governor Romney believes we need to end sanctuary policies. As President, Governor Romney will crack down on these sanctuary policies and will withhold federal funds that go to these cities. He strongly believes that cities that do not and will not enforce federal immigration laws should not be receiving federal funds. Governor Romney will step up the enforcement of our immigration laws. On this, we have his word and a clear record of action.

Its interesting that based on what I believe I know, neither Giuliani nor Romney were actually pro-enforcement of immigration laws when they were Mayor of NY City and Governor of Massachusetts respectively.  Clearly a question must thusly be asked as well, why are both Congressman King and Congressman Smith wrong?

Now for the tidbits.  The Republican Party had better get its act together really fast and select the strongest possible candidate.  I have it on pretty well informed opinion, that Senator Clinton has but sewn up the Democratic nomination…and in what might not be too much of a surprise, we might see Governor Bill Richardson (D-NMex) as the VP nominee.  Confused?  We still have a year to go before we have two candidates (or three), and can get serious about comparisons.

See Right Truth for another groan about U.S. Politics
Wake Up America has a piece titled Thompson would work to overturn Roe vs Wade
Faultline USA talks about The Battle for American Unity

 

 

Technorati , , , , ,
Powered by Gregarious (42)
Share This Sphere: Related Content