Monday, June 27, 2011 - 7:36 PM

GOP presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty will deliver a major address on foreign policy on Tuesday in what his top aides are billing as a rebuttal to what they see as President Barack Obama's flawed May 19 speech on the Middle East.
All the Republican presidential candidates are being forced to sharpen their foreign policy chops as the primary race heats up, but Pawlenty has been vocal on several key foreign policy issues for some time. His campaign may for now be light on foreign policy infrastructure, but it's heavy on policy positions and ideas, several of which he plans to lay out tomorrow morning when he addresses the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
"There's a frustration the governor feels with President Obama, that there's no strategic coherence to his foreign policy. Whether it's the Arab Spring, the Middle East peace process, Iran, or Syria there's an ad hoc approach to what they're doing. And the learning curve never seems to get flatter," Pawlenty's senior foreign policy advisor Brian Hook told The Cable.
"The governor's speech will set forth a strategically coherent approach to the Middle East and he will discuss a better way forward in the Middle East peace process."
Pawlenty will lay out a set of principles that the United States should adhere to in the Arab-Israeli peace process.
Pawlenty will also put forth his own views tomorrow for how the United States should respond to the Arab Spring. He will divide the countries of the region into categories -- those that are struggling for democracy, entrenched monarchies, anti-U.S. regimes such as Syria and Iran, and Israel. He will then argue that there's no one-size-fits-all solution for the problems plaguing the Middle East.
Hook, a former assistant secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, also worked as an advisor to two U.S. ambassadors: Zalmay Kalizad and John Bolton. He emphasizes that on foreign policy, Pawlenty is a "Reagan Republican" when it comes to the broad strokes.
On specific issues such as the president's approach to Israel, U.S. policy toward Iran, or U.S.-Russia relations, Pawlenty often shares the views of leading GOP hawks in the Senate such as Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT). But Pawlenty doesn't want to be identified as a neoconservative, and doesn't want his views to be tied to those senators in particular.
"I wish you could think of another way to describe this wing of the party, other than McCain and Lindsey Graham. I love John, but that's like saying we're embracing Nelson Rockefeller on economics," Pawlenty joked during his interview with Bloomberg News.
The other major foreign policy voice so far in Pawlenty's campaign is former Minnesota congressman and campaign co-chair Vin Weber, who was a member of the neoconservative group Project for a New American Century and an early supporter of the invasion of Iraq
But Hook said Pawlenty's foreign policy identity is his own.
"Governor Pawlenty believes in an exceptional America. He believes that a President must provide strong and decisive leadership to the forces of democracy, and President Obama has repeatedly failed at this basic task," he said.
Pawlenty mostly sticks to that forward-leaning approach, particularly in regard to Obama's intervention in Libya, a topic that he will also address on Tuesday. Pawlenty was among the first to call for a no-fly zone over Libya and for Muammar al-Qaddafi to go, but he's not satisfied with the way the Obama administration has handled the war.
"A quick, decisive decision by Obama in days, not weeks, to impose a no-fly zone would have given us a very different result. But once the president of the United States says that Qaddafi must go, you just can't let him sit there indefinitely and thumb his nose at us. He's a third-rate dictator who has American blood on his hands," he said.
Pawlenty's staff is aware that there is a fractious internal debate going on inside the GOP on foreign policy. The influx of Tea Party candidates in Congress has conflated foreign policy with calls to slash the budget, and candidates like Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are now questioning the continued commitment to Afghanistan. But Pawlenty is unmoved by the politics of the moment.
"Some foreign policy positions are not politically popular today, but the governor bases his decisions on principle and American values -- not what the polls say this week or next," Hook said.
Getty Images
EXPLORE:ARAB WORLD, MIDDLE EAST, DEMOCRACY, DIPLOMACY, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, LIBYA, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, OBAMA'S LIBYA SPEECH, STATE DEPARTMENT, TERRORISM, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, UNITED NATIONS
if we saw anything more than "America First!" exceptionalism out of Pawlenty.
Not that I feel we need to walk away from the world, but this from the President:
"the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce [read: extracting all the oil we can at the lowest possible cost], and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel's security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace"
apart from being an excessively narrow view of what would benefit the US (and the world) in the long run, it's also campaign-season pap.
We can expect more from Pawlenty.
::
Now, if anyone had the guts to say that the region is unstable, and that the US cannot afford to continue trying to maintain the peace there, that the successful suppression of Shia citizens in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain only postpones the inevitable and therefore a withdrawl of the US interest in the region is desirable, then we'd have something to talk about.
Anyone think we'll hear anything at all like this?
I've believed for the last three years or so that the Republican Party's biggest problem is its failure to reckon with the record of the last Republican President.
Republican politicians never mention it. No one claims to be a Bush Republican, though hardly any major Republican in national politics ever opposed the Bush administration on anything significant. No national Republican politician ever repudiates the Bush record, or any of the people who helped him make it, either.
What does this mean for the Republican Party's immediate future? I fear it means that the way the Bush administration conducted itself will be the template for how a future Republican administration will conduct itself. National Republicans use the same lines Bush did -- the last quote in the main post here must have come out of the Bush White House about 5,000 times over the course of eight years in one form or another -- and they rely on the same people Bush did.
This Brian Hook fellow, for instance, who spent a large part of his service to Bush administration in the Justice Department before serving as an Assistant Secretary of State for a few months before Bush left office. He is the one now serving as Tim Pawlenty's "senior foreign policy advisor," communicating the frustration of the former governor with no foreign policy record at the Obama administration lack of foreign policy coherence -- on every major issue involving Middle Eastern countries.
The Middle East was admittedly not the only area in which the Bush administration ran the country aground, but it did so there with fervor and determination. Which, it seems, has now been passed along to the former governor of Minnesota -- a Reagan Republican, naturally, who labels himself after a popular Republican President who did not get the country stuck in unending wars in Southwest Asia or wreck the economy. Just for fun, I'd like to see some journalist at one of the debates if it wouldn't be more accurate to call Pawlenty a Bush Republican. Or, if journalists aren't going to be allowed at campaign debates, if one of them could ask one of the former Bush staffers now working for Pawlenty the same thing.
(2)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE