Newsline looks back at the biggest events of 2011 and gives them a satirical spin.

Congressman Ron Paul at the Republican Leadership Conference – 2011

Is it just me, or are seemingly incessant GOP debates the past few months allowing President Obama’s lack of public exposure to seem more and more like solid leadership? The Republican lineups simplistic, square and reactionary focus on “Anti-Obama” rhetoric especially on foreign policy has highlighted a resoundingly hawkish stance on Iran with little attention to our current engagements in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And while it may be expedient amongst a certain political base to try and one-up each other in aggressive foreign policy talk, only Ron Paul challenges the party line on Americas role in the world.

When it comes to Pakistan, compared to Democrats Republicans have a consistent history of preferring to work closely with the military establishment in Islamabad. While there is a level of bipartisanship post 9/11, (case in point is Obama’s continuation of Bush era drone use with little debate), Republicans have through the Cold War and beyond preferred dealing with the military establishment rather than focusing on democratic, or liberal institution building. Which is not necessarily an entirely erroneous policy; part of the rationale is that state building is expensive in blood, toil, time and treasure and rarely feasible. Further, there are an endless number of constraints and uncertainties that profoundly hinder institution, or democratic state building in a place like Pakistan, rendering Republican policies simply pragmatic.

Which brings us to current policy: the bipartisan endorsed “Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act” (S. 1707) enacted in 2009 has yet to bear tangible fruit. Granted the aforementioned that institution building is time exhaustive, the fact remains that Pakistan has deteriorated politically, in the realm of security and economically. And having watched everyone from Gov. Romney, Sen. Santorun, Gov. Perry, Rep. Bachmann and yes even the soft spoken Gov. Huntsman, reiterates hawkish foreign policy while refusing to acknowledge a need for meaningful improvement. In the Republican camp only Rep. Ron Paul’s extreme calls for an isolationist posture offer some semblance of change. And because his prescriptions have yet to be tried, the utility of his ideas have yet to be tested. And now may be a time to consider his stance since they call for exactly what the Pakistani public wants right now.

Referring to our policies to Pakistan as nothing short of “Bombs for Bribes” Ron Paul acknowledges the nobility, yet inherent futility in calling for democratic institutions in places of strategic engagement. He understands that we are already engaged in “130 countries” with “700 bases around the world” and in this speech against the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act, he bluntly explains:

“the way we treat our fellow countries around the world is we tell them what to do and if they do it, we give them money. If they don’t we bomb them. Under this condition we are doing both. We are currently dropping bombs in Pakistan and innocent people get killed. If you want to promote our good values and democratic processes, you can’t antagonize the people”

Ron Paul Opposes “Bombs and Bribes” for Pakistan – 9/30/2009 - VIDEO

He goes on to suggest dialogue and trade as alternatives to current policy. And although his statement is simplistic and was made in 2009, it highlights Ron Paul’s isolationist, more economically focused prescriptions on foreign policy that seek to reduce our military footprint abroad based on pragmatic constraints, like military and fiscal overstretch. And these calls seem more reasonable than before, especially when it comes to Pakistan and the fact that our aid has yet to yield satisfactory results. So while the Obama administration continues engagement and GOP candidates refuse to acknowledge much concern over current policy to Pakistan, can Ron Paul really be the only alternative available?

Someone once considered completely out of left, excuse me, right field, could be the reminder we need to moderate our engagement with countries of interest. Because what is interesting is that current rhetoric in Pakistan is very much in line with Ron Paul’s ideas. Ron Paul isn’t touting conspiracy theories, nor does he echo far left foreign policy thinkers like Noam Chomsky. Rather, his past statements on our engagement in Pakistan as “inadvertently causing chaos” and “violating security and sovereignty“ are exactly what the average Pakistani seems to feel and hears about in their mainstream TV, and print media. Takeaway for us means, it’s a perception that is realistic; perhaps more so than current policy reflects.

In fact, legendary cricket star turned politician Imran Khan’s recent surge in popularity is in large part due to his highly critical foreign policy rhetoric that vociferously calls for D.C. to adopt a more isolationist stance so Pakistan might reclaim lost autonomy. Imran Khan steadily built support for his party on the continued observation that America’s “War on Terror” has intensified insecurity and his subsequent promises to curtail American involvement is a first step in alleviating Pakistan’s problems.

Imran Khan at Davos – Talks about Winning Hearts & Minds; the War on Terror – VIDEO

He underscores Ron Paul’s sentiment that perceptions urgently matter in a climate where American intervention is increasingly received hostilely. While there may be issues of concern with Ron Paul’s overall foreign policy prescriptions, both politicians insistence on winnings hearts and minds does render the congressman’s ideas in relation to Pakistan worthy of consideration. Imran Khan’s recent ascendency and Governor Paul’s gradually increasing support marks a convergence in shifting to a direction of a less militarized approach to engaging Islamabad. Two men once considered out of the realm of politician viability now increasingly resonate in their respective publics; policymakers ought to take note.

Theodor Lessing’s book Der Jüdische Selbsthass (Jewish Self-hatred) was the first work to discuss the concept of Jewish self-hatred, which as the British Journal of Social Psychology states “is often used rhetorically to discount Jews who differ in their lifestyles, interests or political positions from their accusers.” In Austria, this accusation is sometimes labeled against expatriates, Austrians living abroad and daring to point out the petty and indolent political discourse in the “island of the fortunate,” as Pope Paul VI labeled Austria in the 1970s.

I heard this accusation thrown against me more than once in discussions about domestic politics, Austrian manners, and the infamous Austrian ‘soul’ (“Die oesterreichische Seele”). The most circle-the-wagons response I got was “if things are so bad, why don’t you then stay in your fancy New York apartment indefinitely?” My reply is always the same. I never said things are ‘bad,’ but that I am a skeptic of many things Austrians are traditionally proud of, such as the corporatist social partnership or the free-riding, much cherished Austrian neutrality. What I always like to point out is that I am a skeptic of Austria in the true Socratic meaning of the word, i.e. someone who is free from all prejudices and attempts an inquiry into accepted opinions about the nature of things. At this point, people usually change the subject, which I assume is not because I won an argument but because they are fed up and think my case to be hopelessly lost not to believe in the “Brave New Austrian World.”

And indeed I sometimes ask myself why it is so hard to believe in a prosperous, well-run, little democracy in the heart of Europe. In that sense, I am the antithesis to distinguished historian Guenther Bischof’s observation:

Over the years, they (Austrian expats) experience a high degree of assimilationism, once they turn their backs on Austria. While the prewar refugees from Austria often maintained a high degree of emotional attachment to their homeland, which they were forced to leave, this younger crop of careerists sports hardly an iota of nostalgia or much emotional involvement for their birthplace. They want to be successful and leave Austria behind.

I am very much emotionally attached to my country, yet I think for a young person, there are simply bigger fish to fry in the world than the Austrian state eagle. The truth is that Austria has experienced a miraculous economic recovery from the Second World War—the last true big upheaval in Austrian history—and since has been successful in creating a prosperous, well-run social democracy strongly embedded within an European Union of like minded countries.

The political battles in Austria are petty because there is not much to fight about. A little change in the tax code here, a little adjustment in the social security system there; it is no coincidence that Arno Geiger’s great postwar novel on Austria is called Es geht uns gut (We are doing well). In many ways, we are again in Stefan Zweig’s pre-war Vienna of his autobiography Die Welt von Gestern (The World of Yesterday), where “bureaucrats could set their watches to the day when they retire.”

The result is that the country does not produce statesmen or politicians; it principally produces administrators and bureaucrats because the environment does not require visions or new ideas, but merely the slight improvement of the already existing. Helmut Schmidt’s statement in the 1980s that “wer Visionen hat, soll zum Arzt gehen” (whoever has visions should go and see a doctor) was not a sardonic but factual statement. Western Germany had very little room to maneuver on the international stage because it was locked between two competing blocs in the middle of a Cold War that at any moment could lead to a nuclear exchange. Austria, because of its small size, will always be dependent on exterior factors and is ‘locked’ within the European Union and its bigger neighbors.

The best evidence for this is the young political elite of Austria, which primarily consists of young Doppelgaenger (a double of a living person) of long serving politicians. “Er ist tuechtig!” (He is strenuous), or “Er hat noch keinen Fehler gemacht!” (He has not made a mistake yet) are the most often heard praises for young politicians in all parties, which might as well be applied to any Austrian bureaucrat since the days of emperor Joseph II. Yet, as the tagline of the western film The Man Who Shot Liberty Vance states, “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” In the case of Austria, that means even superbly organizing a proper Catholic thanksgiving celebration can cause you to be labeled “a political talent” as was the case with former Vice Chancellor Josef Proell, who as a young party member did precisely that. In most other countries, this would make you a good events planner, but in Austria, it makes you a political hopeful, i.e. for non-Austrians and after stripping the legend, an administrative hopeful.

Where are Austria’s grand strategists and statesmen? For example, it is a sheer impossibility to devise a daring new foreign policy for the Balkans or Eastern Europe (which was hijacked by the Austrian private sector more than 20 years ago) or dispatch the best and brightest of Austria to Brussels, the true ‘great uncle’ of small European powers, to push Austrian ‘interests’. (When did anyone ever hear any Austrian politician mention the word ‘Austrian interests’?) I am not even mentioning the rise of China, nuclear Iran, the war in Afghanistan, terrorism in Pakistan, the power transition in North Korea, or the current upheaval in Russia. “Such outward things dwell not in Austrian desires,” to paraphrase Shakespeare’s Henry V, and never seems to be a concern for any party. The exception of course is the United States to which small Austria defiantly proclaims, “Austria is not the 51st state of the United States.”

At the end of the day, bashing Austria as an expat is merely like trying to find the one thing that is wrong with a Jane Austin novel; the elegant form often hides the weakness of the content. Even the Americans recognize Austria’s obsession with outward appearance as a diplomatic cable from the US Embassy in Vienna indicates, “More than most countries, Austria places great importance on conferences and ceremonials.” Yet as the US motivational speaker Wayne Dyer once said, “Transformation literally means going beyond your form.” In that sense, expats bashing Austria are just expressing their frustration that little will change over the years in our Alpine republic. But then again, why should it; Uns gehts ja so gut (we are doing so well!)

On November 22, 2011, CNN hosted a debate between the Republican candidates for the presidential nomination, this time dedicated to the theme of national security. The debate was sponsored by the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), two of the most conservative think tanks in the US with considerable influences in shaping policies and advising members of the Republican party. Both think tanks count among their employees former members of the Bush administration, and hard core neoconservatives. Even prior the beginning of the ‘show,’ one could expect an ultra conservative, neoconservative direction on the choice of the questions and their analyses. The majority of the questions asked by the audience was either from members of Heritage or the AEI. The environment and atmosphere was undeniably pro-GOP.

The issues covered during a two hours spam were: increasing the power of the Patriot Act in fighting terrorism; securing US interests in Pakistan; the next step in the war in Afghanistan; the backing of Israel, even in case of an  attack against Iran; new rounds of sanctions against Iran; development and foreign aid; defense cuts; protection of the borders and stopping drug cartels; illegal immigration; Syria as a US interests?; and Al-Shabab in Somalia. So quite a broad agenda.

Not surprisingly, three groups can be identified among the eight GOP candidates: the isolationist (Ron Paul); the exceptionalists (Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingricht, Jon Huntsman); and the clueless (Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Herman Cain).

Ron Paul has historically been one of the most consistent candidates especially in his view on foreign policy and national security. His argument can be divided into three narratives: first, the Congress should be declaring war, not the President; second, need to maintain a fair balance between security and liberties; third, no interference in domestic affairs of other countries.

The second group, or the exceptionalists, underlined the uniqueness of US power and the US as a country. As described by Mr. Santorum, “the US is the shiny city on top of the hill leading the world.” All of them agreed to increase the power of Patriot Act and even some of them – read Mr. Santorum – were in favor of racial profiling in the fight against terrorism. However, a division emerged around the question of Afghanistan, on one side, Mitt Romney called for a progressive removal of US troops, which is the current Obama’s strategy based on the advices of US Generals; while, Jon Huntsman called for a full removal of US troops as the missions – removal of the Talibans from Kabul; destroying Al Qaeda; holding free elections – were attained. Mr Huntsman underlined that nation-building is not in the interests of the US. On the question of Iran, all of them expressed their supports to Israel and raised their concerns about a nuclear Iran. The strategies in order to limit Iran are quite unclear; some talked of regime change (Gingricht), while others of maintaining sanctions (Romney and Huntsman).

The third group exposed their ignorance in the questions of national security and foreign policy. Ms Bachmann was always referring to intelligence and the need to gather more intelligence for the simple reason that she serves on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Ms. Bachmann was coveting this seat in order to give herself credentials needed in case of a presidential run. Mr Cain and Perry did neither convince nor show any knowledge on foreign policy matters. They were simply restating facts and following the ‘admitted’ narratives among conservatives.

Throughout the debate, one could see the clear lack of knowledge on the question of foreign policy. The arguments raised were too simplistic and lack considerable depth. The opinions were one-sided with no understanding of the others – either enemies and/or allies. The concept of soft power, smart power were dismissed to an over-used of hard power, coercion, and national interests. Furthermore, this debate highlighted that american exceptionalism is still extremely present in the minds of conservative policy-makers. US national security must be enforced at any costs and could lead to violation of international law, and that national sovereignties (especially the ones of Pakistan and Iran) can be violated in the name of US security. Ms. Bachmann, in previous speeches, declared that she considers torture as a valuable instrument to increase national security and gain valuable information.

The blaming game of President Obama’s foreign policy and presidency has been considerable and probably the only point that all candidates agreed on. Mr. Obama has been portrayed as a weak commander in chief endangering the national security of the US as well as its power. Oftentimes, GOP candidates claimed that Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism. However, the positive dimensions of Obama’s foreign policy were either diminished or criticized. For example, on the killing of Osama bin Laden, all GOP candidates used the famous ‘we’ to describe a successful mission instead of giving credit to the Obama administration. On the mission in Libya, they all questioned the necessity of the operations as US interests were not at stake even though the mission was a successful case of multilateralism and enforcement of the concept of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

Another interesting point was the discussion around the questions of cutting the deficit and balancing the budget. Both issues were framed as a matter of national security. However, some of the comments went beyond the general question of national security per se. At the exception of Mr. Paul, all GOP candidates claimed that US power must be reinforced through a stronger army and more military capabilities. Their rationale is that a strong army equal a secure nation. The GOP candidates also expressed the need to be more invovled abroad and protect US interests at any costs. None of them is probably familiar with the actual discussion about the design of a new US grand strategy, which is moving towards offshore balancing in order to avoid over-stretching. Part of the offshore balancing strategy consists in strengthening alliances and cooperation, which has been at the heart of the latest trip of President Obama in the pacific region. Cooperation – at the exception of Israel – has not been part of the debate. The issues of NATO and cooperation with the Europeans on terrorism, Iran, and other pressing international issues were not touched on. This debate was not surprisingly in the continuity of the hegemonic mentality of the early post-Cold War period, or as argued by Mr. Romney, the ‘American century.’ The changing balance of power leading to a multipolar world has not been tackled. The GOP candidates live in the ‘peace of illusions,’ to repeat Christopher Layne’s argument.

The decline of American power is a redline never touched on by neither candidates. Unfortunately, it is a reality. The answers and analyses were not appropriate to the reality of world politics and the changing nature of international relations. How can a debate on foreign policy go on for two hours without mentioning the rise of China, Brazil, Turkey and India? The answer is simple: denial over the rise of new foreign policy actors.
The last question from the audience was, “which national security matter that was not addressed during the debate concerns you the most?” Mr Santorum expressed his concerns with Central America and the spread of communism, while Mr. Paul showed his fear about American over-reaction to world events, which could lead to another war. Mr. Perry underlined his concerns on the rise of China as well as cybersecurity. Mr Romney also argued that China was a main threat, but a long-term one, whereas Iran is the present menace. Mr. Cain showed his concerns over the question of cybersecurty. Mr Gingricht talked about the threats of WMDs and cyberattacks. Ms Bachmann underlined the threat of terrorism. Last but not least, Mr. Huntsman expressed his concerns over the rise of China as well as the high domestic unemployment and high debt of the US economy.

Two conclusions can be made from this debate: first, all the candidates – at the exception of Ron Paul – if elected will be in the clear continuity of the Bush’s foreign policy; second, they all live in a fantasy that the 21st will be an ‘American Century.’ This notion of fantasy has been used and analyzed by David Frum, former speechwriter for President Bush, in an excellent article published in New York Magazine. David Frum has been a republican for most of his life, worked for the GOP, and for conservative think tank such as American Enterprise Institute. But after being too vocal and critical about the current course of evolution of the Republican party, he has been excluded and been in ‘intellectual exile’ for some time now. His writings clearly illustrate the lack of touch of the GOP with reality. He goes quite far when for example he claimed that conservative think tanks “increasingly function as public-relations agencies, conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics.” This was clearly the case throughout the debate.

Looking through a European angle, the GOP candidates are sending a wrong message, or a message of deja-vu to the other side of the pond. It could very much be that Mars is back.

Is the criticism of the army largely justified or misplaced? Is the military adequately focusing on the most dangerous threats to the nation?