Foreign policy of GOP hopefuls echoes Obama’s

Late last month at the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas, the headquarters of gambling magnate and Republican Party donor Sheldon Adelson, former President George W. Bush offered a blunt assessment of the foreign policy credentials of Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“It’s going to be hard for her to defend or support the president’s legacy” Bush said, according to an audience member at a closed-door Republican Jewish Coalition event hosted by Adelson.

Reviewing President Barack Obama’s challenges overseas, it is easy to see why Bush, who suffered his own blunders, believes Clinton will struggle to explain a long list of disappointments and reversals of fortune in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Ukraine, Russia and Venezuela.

However, a review of the foreign policy statements by some of the major Republicans vying to be her opponent in the 2016 general election, it is also easy to conclude that there is not much new to recommend the field. 

The Republicans speak boldly of policies that will secure America’s interest abroad. “Strength” is a repeated word, and admiration of the administration of President Ronald Reagan is a repeated theme. Yet the Republican prescriptions largely point to the same policy paths as the Obama administration’s.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz declared in an interview with The Daily Caller that foreign policy “should be directly tied to U.S. national security.” He recommended “overwhelming force” overseas and added that “it is not the job of the U.S. military to engage in nation building to turn foreign countries into democratic utopias.” This criticism differs negligibly from the Obama administration’s policy in Iraq and Syria. During Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state (2009 to 2013), the U.S. policy in the Middle East certainly avoided nation building and was in no way an endorsement of democratic utopias.

Sen. Marco Rubio’s approach to the Middle East turmoil focuses on Iran in what he called a “principled approach.” He disdains Obama’s foreign policy. “Desperation for an agreement has caused him to elevate politics over policy, legacy over leadership and adversaries over allies,” Rubio said. Instead he recommends a “firm stand” against Iran’s aggression. There are no details what “firm” means, but it would likely be along the lines of what the Obama administration has done, such as dispatching major U.S. warships to the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Aden.

On Cuba, a policy for which Rubio is especially well educated because of his heritage, the senator admitted readily, “I am not opposed to changes in Cuba policy. I think we constantly need to examine our foreign policy.” What he dislikes about the Obama policy is that it has “no chance of leading to the result that we want.” Again, Rubio’s criticism of the Democratic policy these last years is not profound; it mostly reflects impatience for results.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s remarks on foreign policy so far have been tentative. Nonetheless, what he has said of the Middle East is consistent with the conduct of the Obama administration. “I think aggressively, we need to take the fight to [the Islamic State] and any other radical Islamic terrorist in and around the world, because it’s not a matter of when they attempt an attack on American soil — or not if, I should say — it’s when, and we need leadership that says clearly, not only amongst the United States but amongst our allies, that we’re willing to take appropriate action,” Walker said. His caveat for airstrikes is that they should be “surgical,” which describes the status quo.

When asked about ground troops, he speculated, “I wouldn’t rule anything out.” Again, this roughly matches the Obama administration’s approach to deploying U.S. combat troops as trainers in Iraq.

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry is widely assumed to be a candidate for the nomination, and recently he spoke critically about the defense budget for his theoretical administration. “I would reframe the entire defense debate — from what do we have left over to spend on defense to what must we spend to keep America safe,” He said. While this would be a departure from the present austerity in defense appropriations, it is a matter of dispute with Congress, not the Obama administration or Clinton’s time at the State Department.

When Perry turned to Iran policy, he declared, “One of my first actions in office would be to invalidate the president’s Iran agreement.” He added, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement,” which is the exact same as Secretary of State John Kerry’s explicit opinion of the Iran negotiations for the Obama administration.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, of all the candidates, has so far expressed opinions the most similar to the Obama administration’s foreign policy views. 

For example, one of Bush’s foreign policy advisers is former Secretary of State James Baker. Baker recently created headaches when he made remarks that were understood as disapproving of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s dismissal of a two-state solution. Bush was said to be displeased with Baker’s comments, though Baker’s opinion is similar to the Obama administration’s.

Bush has also spoken in admiration for Obama’s regard for the National Security Agency and his sanctions policy on Iran. “I’m not a big Obama fan, but when he does something right, we need to give him credit,” Bush said. He added that he regards the negotiations with Iran on its nuclear weapons program “very naive,” but this is an opinion, not a policy criticism.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is reportedly the lone contrarian in the Republican field; he rejects the general GOP recommendation of a strong and proactive foreign policy. He has spoken against foreign interventions such as the Iraq war. (“It was a mistake to topple [Saddam] Hussein.”) However, Paul has also hinted at reversal of his aversion to overseas military force by making bland pronouncements that can be interpreted as expedience, not principle. (“There are times you fight, times you don’t.”) In addition, he now declares his support for the Obama administration’s combat operations against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

Other Republican candidates — such as Carly Fiorina of California, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Dr. Ben Carson of Maryland — have not offered anything substantially different from the Obama administration’s overtasked foreign policy.

If the GOP is looking to run successfully against Clinton on the basis of her time in the State Department or her support for Obama’s foreign policy, there will need to be much more distinct policy goals than bromides about success through strength. For now, the Republican field is offering little more than me-tooism.